How is Sweden doing with COVID-19 today?

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

---

2600 bro wrote:
If you knew anything about effect sizes or statistics you'd see how stupid you sound. Even small effect sizes can be sufficient to push R0 below 1 and eliminate the virus. Small effect sizes are notoriously difficult to test for because you need large well-controlled studies - which we do not have for face masks, only observational studies.

You're correct a face mask doesn't make transmission impossible - but even a 10-15% reduction would be a big help in allowing social contact and economic activity.

Your artificial standard of masks as a magic panacea is intentionally designed to 1) unproveable to you're always maybe right 2) stifle actual progress and discussion.

I would say it's malice, but I really think you're just naive and young, so try and learn!

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

---

Harambe wrote:

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

So you are basically saying scientific data and consensus does not count, only the ignorance of stupid people like yourself...that's what matters. If we satisfy your needs we are being patriotic, but if we push for a return to national sanity for the good of the country....we are selfish. I get it. DB

---

Well if you see the consensus of "we don't have enough data either way -- it's a hard thing to test" as meaning "not effective," then sure -- think what you want.

I tried to explain how I reason through this given the lack of gold-standard evidence. See the article that "facts and reason" cited discussing the challenges of getting good data on masking.

I am confident in my analysis given the data so far. I am surprised at the pushback on masking from people who want the economy to re-open fully ASAP. Why not accept a low cost measure that could improve outcomes and the economy?

---

The consensus means when the studies show they don't do much, they don't do much. This is why they demanded they would not help at the onset of this pandemic; because the evidence says no. This virus should be treated the same. Just because a mask obviously block large droplets, does not mean it mitigates the spread of a virus when asymptomatic people where them all of the time in public. Cherry picking uncertainties is just ridiculous. Stop yourself, you are delusional and the main problem the USA faces right now are people like yourself.

---

---

This is not true by any means. What is the effect of mask? Undetectable? So assumptions are just enough?

---

---

Harambe wrote:

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:
Why are you posting as multiple people on this thread? What is wrong with you?

---

The only person doing this is you -- who posts as LFH or LFH 2. Serious case of projection

---

Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

---

zxczxcv wrote:
Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

---

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:
The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks.

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

This statement is an outright lie. The study was also modeling projections for deaths to come, full of assumptions because that's what models do. Why don't you find the data that shows the vast majority....51% is not a vast majority either. Precious, just stop your lying. Please, people are suffering because of this BS. By the way, I wear a mask almost all day trying to help people and continue doing good science. You hide in your house with no mask on.

---

Other guy wrote:

---

zxczxcv wrote:
Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

---

Based on what studies? The only study I am aware of (Danish) concludes the complete opposite.

---

A lot of words to say: "I have no clue the effect of masks, but my dogma is forcing me to bloviate"

Less ranting, paragraph breaks, succinct ideas would be make you easier to read.

Just admit the data is POOR but experiments point toward a positive effect. You are demanding a massive effect before you'll support mandates, fine, whatever bro. But acting like you better than others know the level masks reduce transmission is just hilarious.

Wanna bet on our relative scientific experience?

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Mask do not reduce overall transmission 10-15%; that would be significant; they may reduce droplet release by that much but that does not by any means translate to anything useful; it certainly does not translate to 10-15% reduction in transmission. It is nice though that you feel fine to force assumption based policy on people and call anyone questioning why we are deviating from the norm without evidence guilty of be naïve or malicious. How about no, how about you don't know what you are talking about, how about you are the naive one, how about your intent is either a selfish serve to your own paranoia or completely malicious. You are the charlatan selling panic. 99% chance I have much much more scientific experience than you do; you childish liar.

---

---

aopfhp wrote:
All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

---

---

A Scientist wrote:

---

aopfhp wrote:
All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

---

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

---

---

2600 bro wrote:
A lot of words to say: "I have no clue the effect of masks, but my dogma is forcing me to bloviate"

Less ranting, paragraph breaks, succinct ideas would be make you easier to read.

Just admit the data is POOR but experiments point toward a positive effect. You are demanding a massive effect before you'll support mandates, fine, whatever bro. But acting like you better than others know the level masks reduce transmission is just hilarious.

Wanna bet on our relative scientific experience?

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Mask do not reduce overall transmission 10-15%; that would be significant; they may reduce droplet release by that much but that does not by any means translate to anything useful; it certainly does not translate to 10-15% reduction in transmission. It is nice though that you feel fine to force assumption based policy on people and call anyone questioning why we are deviating from the norm without evidence guilty of be naïve or malicious. How about no, how about you don't know what you are talking about, how about you are the naive one, how about your intent is either a selfish serve to your own paranoia or completely malicious. You are the charlatan selling panic. 99% chance I have much much more scientific experience than you do; you childish liar.

---

---

This is a good start.

No string of weird name-calling, ranting.

One clear argument. Simple sentences. You're learning.

We can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of masks in societal settings. It's clear that a 51% chance for a 5% effect size is not acceptable for you to change your life etc. Luckily most people are willing to take a shot at it or else we'd be in an even worse position.

If we waited for incontrovertible evidence in every crisis we would fail each and every time, but you know this. You just like the contrarian bent - that was me in my younger years.

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Yes, I will admit that the data on masks being effective is poor to non-existent. On the other hand there is data saying masks in the general public is not an effective mitigation tool.

---

---

A Scientist wrote:

---

aopfhp wrote:
All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

---

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

---

Billings, Montana is out of ICU beds, because of Covid. Minimal mask wearing by Trumpets there. Relationship ?!? I'll wear my mask !

---

zxczxcv wrote:
Masks and distance work. The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks. Infection rates in those wearing masks are minuscule. The virus comes back when masks are dropped and distance not respected.

" We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1132-9

---

---

Harambe wrote:

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

P.S. The histrionics you have in every post tend to detract from your argument. I think masks help - does that make me "the main problem the USA faces right now?" Chill out, bro

---

You do more than demand that masks help. You exaggerate data to spread panic, you mock society for not complying with unfounded and unreasonable measures. You act like you know what you are talking about when you barely have a first grade understanding of the scientific process or even basic concepts. You are a shill constantly trying to shoot down reality to perpetuate this nonsense. You post daily via multiple handles to make your arguments sound more supported. You are a liar, you are a charlatan, you are a con and you are hyping a narrative that has killed thousands and destroyed millions of lives. You are disgusting, you are not just claiming your opinion.

---

---

Other guy wrote:

---

A Scientist wrote:

---

aopfhp wrote:
All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

---

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

---

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Sweden, a nation of 10 million plus people, has not seen double figures in daily deaths in over three months. Even by the CDC own inflated numbers (dying "with" Covid).

So scary.

---

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:
[quote]zxczxcv wrote:
The vast majority of cases are those not wearing masks.

[quote]zxczxcv wrote:

This statement is an outright lie. The study was also modeling projections for deaths to come, full of assumptions because that's what models do. Why don't you find the data that shows the vast majority....51% is not a vast majority either. Precious, just stop your lying. Please, people are suffering because of this BS. By the way, I wear a mask almost all day trying to help people and continue doing good science. You hide in your house with no mask on.

---

---

Precious Roy wrote:

---

Other guy wrote:

---

A Scientist wrote:

---

aopfhp wrote:
All Covid deniers/Swedish fluffers: Post your apologies here.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1321880742108913665?s=20

---

LOL, deniers not touching this one!!

---

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

Sweden, a nation of 10 million plus people, has not seen double figures in daily deaths in over three months. Even by the CDC own inflated numbers (dying "with" Covid).

So scary.

---

Sweden is still at the early stages in their current outbreak. Other countries have been in similar circumstances and have effectively fought back (Victoria, Australia, Israel, Vietnam, etc.). Sweden does have an excellent health system and good tracing and tracking. They can crush this outbreak if they want to.

If they continue their "light touch" and this outbreak continues to spiral out of control, you will see deaths rise in a few weeks. The current outbreak, like many in Europe, started in young people having parties as colleges went back into session in the Fall. The cases take weeks to move from affecting more of the young age groups to spreading into older and more vulnerable groups. When that happens, the deaths will climb. Sweden has a chance to stop that right now and have taken some steps to up restrictions in the areas seeing the most significant outbreaks.

---

---

Lead Foil Hat wrote:

Correct; and from the country that sent its kids back to school after Easter, does not wear masks and has one of the lowest deaths per capita in Europe. That doesn't count though, Precious's alter-ego's assumption based on the misread of a modeling projection is more important and the fear must increase or we will all die and start killing elder species of all kinds across the entire universe. We are stupid and selfish for wanting to trust the actual data.

---