Arizona saw a 75 percent drop in coronavirus cases after mask requirements and bar closures, CDC says

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

From the CDC

 

The Grand Canyon State was a hot spot for COVID-19 over the summer.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/520340-arizona-saw-a-75-percent-drop-in-coronavirus

[laylalex 7,282]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

From the CDC

 

The Grand Canyon State was a hot spot for COVID-19 over the summer.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/520340-arizona-saw-a-75-percent-drop-in-coronavirus

If only this metric worked in ALL states, eh?  Not sure what you are trying to say here, unless it's that bars are a means of spreading covid via saliva-spraying drunks.  If so, well DUH!  We have known that for years.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Iowa, no mask requirement, 0.9% last updated death rate, 1.4% overall since March

Arizona, mask requirement, 1.1% last updated death rate, 2.5% overall since March

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

""

Iowa, no mask requirement, 0.9% last updated death rate, 1.4% overall since March

Arizona, mask requirement, 1.1% last updated death rate, 2.5% overall since March""

 

This is just gobbledygook

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

This is just gobbledygook

Yes it is. Now try responding to my post. 

[Dashinka 24,110]

Do folks understand that people in AZ residing mostly indoors during the Summer?  Cherry-picking stats is similar to the study that said changing the speed limit to 55 was the driving force to reducing traffic deaths while ignoring the other factors such as vehicle safety improvements and seatbelt usage increases that were also changing at the same time.

[laylalex 7,282]

But masks are at their most useful indoors, and where social distancing is difficult. So if people were mostly indoors during this time, wouldn't the risk of transmission be higher and the need for masks greater? It's not like people in Arizona never leave their homes to go shopping during August. One would think that if more people were inside, the transmission rate would be higher than during a time when people could be outside more comfortably. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

11 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Yes it is. Now try responding to my post. 

No.  The points are BS and have nothing to do with the original CDC report. Iowa did not start with a high rate of infection and then drop. Arizona did and it corresponded with the timeline of adding masks and bar closures.  New cases have been trending up in Iowa. Nothing is driving cases down in Iowa.

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

No.  The points are BS and have nothing to do with the original CDC report. Iowa did not start with a high rate of infection and then drop. Arizona did and it corresponded with the timeline.  New cases have been trending up in Iowa. 

 

They have everything to do with it. "Cases" doesn't mean a whole lot by themselves. Deaths do. Iowa's death rate (or fatality rate, whatever you want to call it) as I pointed out is still lower than Arizona's even after their mask requirements. They've also not had mask requirements at all, and Arizona's has always been higher. It clearly points to other issues that have nothing to do with masks. You just don't like it because you want to dictate the terms of debate, as I've noticed here and in other topics, and it doesn't work on me. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

But masks are at their most useful indoors, and where social distancing is difficult. So if people were mostly indoors during this time, wouldn't the risk of transmission be higher and the need for masks greater? It's not like people in Arizona never leave their homes to go shopping during August. One would think that if more people were inside, the transmission rate would be higher than during a time when people could be outside more comfortably. 

Yes, but what AZ is doing isn't really any different than what FL has been doing for months.  Why is FL so much higher than AZ in deaths?  And IA too, as Burnt points out.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Yes, but what AZ is doing isn't really any different than what FL has been doing for months.  Why is FL so much higher than AZ in deaths?  And IA too, as Burnt points out.

Once upon a time there was a thing called science where we took time to find things out and begin deriving hypotheses.. rather than what's happening now which is coming to conclusions immediately and shaping any information whatsoever around the predetermined conclusion. Apparently this is what passes off as science today, along with the usual appeal to authority. Shortcut term.. confirmation bias. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They have everything to do with it.

Not unless you provide a timeline for deaths between two populations.

Quote

 

"Cases" doesn't mean a whole lot by themselves.

Death is one outcome, recovery with no affects is another, recovery will mental or physical impairment is another. Cases of covid-19 mean everything if you or a family member have the disease. What an obtuse statement.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Deaths do. Iowa's death rate (or fatality rate, whatever you want to call it) as I pointed out is still lower than Arizona's even after their mask requirements.

 

Preventing cases of covid-19 is the best way to prevent deaths, and other impairments from covid-19, duh.

 

Quote

 

They've also not had mask requirements at all, and Arizona's has always been higher. It clearly points to other issues that have nothing to do with masks.

Cases in Iowa are increasing. That is not good.

 

Quote

 

You just don't like it because you want to dictate the terms of debate, as I've noticed here and in other topics, and it doesn't work on me. 

 

Logic and Science don't impact some  who continue to spread disinformation about this disease. Now we are told getting covid-19 doesn't "mean much"

 

 

Edited October 10, 2020 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

25 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Not unless you provide a timeline for deaths between to population.

Reporting period.. week. 

 

Quote

Death is one outcome, recovery with no affects is another, recovery will mental or physical impairment is another. Cases of covid-19 mean everything if you or a family member have the disease. What an obtuse statement.

Death/recovery (either died or didn't, was hospitalized or wasn't) are the only unequivocal outcomes, the rest you cite aren't in these statistics and likely for privacy/difficulty to quantify reasons. Also, I do have family with the virus, and appeal to emotion isn't a substitute for awful arguments. 

 

Quote

Preventing cases of covid-19 is the best way to prevent deaths, and other impairments from covid-19, duh.

For the people with serious health issues that the virus tends to kill, yes. Beyond that, what you call prevention such as the mask obsession doesn't show any difference as per the comparisons I cited. 

 

Quote

Cases in Iowa are increasing. That is not good.

It's not terrible either. What matters from what we can see is recovery (i.e. not death).

 

Quote

Logic and Science don't impact some  who continue to spread disinformation about this disease. Now we are told getting covid-19 doesn't "mean much"

Not when nearly all recover from it just fine. Hyperbole and obsession with products has nothing to do with science, nor logic. Hence my statistical arguments demonstrating it. Unfortunately these obsessions and political confirmation bias misdirects people from other possible causes+solutions, almost as if some prefer the few deaths they're invoking appeal to emotion to try and fruitlessly win debates with.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Reporting period.. week. 

 

Death/recovery (either died or didn't, was hospitalized or wasn't) are the only unequivocal outcomes, the rest you cite aren't in these statistics and likely for privacy/difficulty to quantify reasons. Also, I do have family with the virus, and appeal to emotion isn't a substitute for awful arguments. 

 

For the people with serious health issues that the virus tends to kill, yes. Beyond that, what you call prevention such as the mask obsession doesn't show any difference as per the comparisons I cited. 

 

It's not terrible either. What matters from what we can see is recovery (i.e. not death).

 

Not when nearly all recover from it just fine. Hyperbole and obsession with products has nothing to do with science, nor logic. Hence my statistical arguments demonstrating it. Unfortunately these obsessions and political confirmation bias misdirects people from other possible causes+solutions, almost as if some prefer the few deaths they're invoking appeal to emotion to try and fruitlessly win debates with.

"Nearly all?"