Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28
It is and was. The initial claim was that the masked counties dropped by 6%, etc. Then a couple of days later the Sentinel, for the 4th time, pointed out the bullshit coming from the state of Kansas. Essentially a Doctor from Ottowa University explained that the state was using a 7 day rolling average of the "rate of change" of cases to show a decline.
The doctor explained that it was misleading and that if you look at the actual cases per 100k population you can see a large increase in cases in mandated counties.
Remember a couple months back the state tried to say similar but they used a different axis on the non-mandated graph than they did on the mandated graph to give the appearance that mandated counties were going better when in reality they were doing the same.
The entire thing is not necessarily do masks work but do mask mandates actually work? Some people want to assume that a mask mandate means everyone automatically wears a mask by default and that no mandate means no one will wear a mask by default. Neither of which are true.
Basically this:
|
I don't think either you or the Sentinel were understanding what was being measured. What was being measured wasn't the cumulative total of cases per 100K over that time period, but rather, the 7 day average number of new cases per 100K population. If you look at the raw data, it pretty clearly shows that counties that have mask mandates had a much lower rate of new cases per 100K. This distinction becomes much more pronounced if you factor in the most recent data. Here is a brief example of the data (cumulative) and not standardized per 100K populations looking at 4 random counties in Kansas; two with mask mandates (Shawnee and Sedgwick) and two without (Trego and Rooks):
County 7.3.20 8.21.20 11.20.20
Shawnee 759 1928 6381
Sedgwick 1564 6386 24476
Trego 1 7 184
Rooks 8 20 279
Considering that Shawnee and Sedgwick have a combined population of ~693K vs a combined population of 7086 for Rooks and Trego, for example, then yes, on a per 100K population level, KDHE data is really very solid.
You simply don't understand that, and it is also why no other news outlets have picked up the Sentinel story: the writers on the Sentinel are too stupid to understand the data as well.
Again, here is the raw data:
https://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/D...summary?bidId=