Indeed, "Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group." At the risk of this becoming a lecture, I would encourage a perusal of the Appendix, which provides a deeper discussion on these drawbacks. (I'll come back to the drawbacks later.) This was, in part, why I did the deep dive on the Cairo study which HAD a meaningfully-large sample size (4M+), and it SUPPORTED these types of controls (though that wasn't a mask study). Before leaving that part of our chat, it IS worth documenting that the mask pool of studies HAD some decent "n", and while not perfect, I'm not dismissive of the results:
Sweden....I could talk about SE and COVID19 for a LONG time. Unlike many FReepers, while I applauded their approach I was VERY vocal early on about how Sweden's size-adjusted fatality totals were higher than that in the US. I did a deeper dive (I can't find the link) and this was chiefly due to SE being "Cuomo-level efficient in killing the elderly". My biggest problem with Sweden was they "trusted the science" which, from the nation that gave us Greta Thunberg (who, btw, I blame less than her awful parents), doesn't inspire confidence AND means that - since science isn't math - anyone could twist facts to change policy. I prefer the demolition derby approach in America to the dutiful obedience of Sweden.
That said, as you note, while Sweden isn't setting records, per Worldometers, they ARE 23rd globally in per capita fatalities (1,226 per 1MM) vs the US' 9th place (1,493), with a global per capita fatality total of 1,121 per 1MM. Your case fatality rates suggest Sweden's cases have a higher chance of dying vs that in the US, yet the virus kills more people per capita in the US. We also are assuming uniformity of testing intensity, which may be a heroic assumption.
What this says to me, getting back to masks, is that the US - Sweden comparison doesn't make mask-wearing a slam-dunk idea.
Also, mandates are not as important as how diligently people adhere to the recommendations for avoiding disease.
masks are far from a restriction on our liberty as so many try to portray.
There is the rub...State govts requires masks but they aren't working as intended. This ties in to the aforementioned drawbacks to studies - people behave as people, unless you are a child in Cairo and there are some pretty heavy controls placed on you. Whether masks aren't working because they really don't do the trick, due to sloppy compliance, because of less-than-sanitary use or ill-fitting masks, that points to simply giving up the charade or fine/jail people for being sub-optimal. I'm not being flip...that's really our only bottom line choice set.
Every time I see some suggestion that we should take special measures to protect the old, while allowing Covid-19 to rampage through the rest of the population unchecked, I think of that story about belling the cat. It sounds nice, until you start considering how it is to be accomplished. What are we going to do, imprison everyone over age 50 in sterile facilities for their protection? Furthermore, Covid-19 is NOT completely harmless at any age. People of every age have died from it.
First, that is some pretty heavy phrase choice there. We were getting along so swimmingly up to that point.
I don't have great national data by age for cases, hospitalization and fatality. The state of MA has the BEST such disclosure out of the dozens of states where I perused. They changed the reporting format so here is the December 31, 2020 report with specific focus on pp39, 41, and 43. On p39, clearly the virus was rampaging through the 60 and younger group for the prior two weeks. And yet, if we flip to p41, they under 61 crowd account for only 17.9% of hospitalizations (and yes, I know the cases may need more than 2 weeks to get worse but work with me) and even less on a per capita basis. Finally, the fatalities on p43 are even more skewed to the 61+ age brackets. Indeed, for this two week period, nobody under 20 died.
Parenthetically, I never said COVID19 is COMPLETELY harmless for some age bracket, but cmon...bank robbers hit banks because that's where the money is; worrying obsessively about younger people after looking at the MA data is like holding up a briar patch.
If it is YOUR assertion that the young ones are transmitting the disease to the elderly, then given the stunning difference of the case vs hospitalization vs fatality data by age, well...yes...why NOT defend the elderly vs tie down everyone under 61? We need not use hyperbole and imprison them in sterile facilities.
There are the Mask Karens, who believe it is their duty to tell everyone that they need to wear a mask lest they infect Karen and the rest of the planet. They are Stasi-like people, who make your business THEIR business.
Then, there are the AntiMask Zealots, who believe it is their duty to tell everyone that wearing a mask is a sign of moral and intellectual inferiority, and that you will soon be rounded up like turkeys in mid-November. They consider themselves to be like the main character in Ayn Rand's Anthem, when in reality they have more in common with William Kristol.
If 98% of people who died had underlying symptoms (in MA), if nursing home residents are hit harder (especially for minorities) there has GOT to be a less disruptive and less intrusive to the general public approach to deal with this.
