[nickthemagicman]

Sweden enacted no mask laws. They have had around 7 deaths in the past week.

In one study showed that mask laws decreased infections by around 2% after 21 days.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.0...

So there's a good chance that masks don't account for the massive decrease in infections you're seeing in Florida.

I think time will tell if you're correct or OP is correct.

If mask laws are lifted, and infection rate still continues to decrease, that means masks are ineffective and OP is correct.

If mask laws are lifted and infection rates increase again that means you are correct as masks did have an effect.

[tghw]

In other places, mask mandates were correlated with a 46% drop in daily new cases. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/08/12/coro...

And even if mask laws are lifted and infection rates continue going down, it does not show that masks are ineffective nor that the OP was correct. After a mask mandate, some people will continue wearing masks and social distancing. As with immunity, the efficacy is in the numbers, with a critical mass necessary to protect the "herd".

[nickthemagicman]

There's no source in that article you postedfor the claim of 46%.

My 5th grade teacher wouldn't have accepted that as homework much less should it be a mainstream news article.

You can believe what you want though

That aside.

Your point is basically that people will continue to wear masks and social distance even if laws are lifted.

I think thats wrong as evidenced by packed beaches, college parties, and black lives protests.

People are not going to be responsible, what's stopping most of these people presently is laws...and barely.

The reason the numbers are going to continue to go down is not due to behavior it's due to physiological immunity.

But you set yourself up with an unprovable argument either way with no evidence for your claims other than 'people are responsible'.

When it's abundantly clear that people are not.

[gloriosoc]

So this is a good point. I was just talking with a colleague about this. Some of the herd immunity models take factors like how mobile people are into account. It seems like masks could be a factor in the models of herd immunity. This might be a semantic argument. If population characteristics such as age are part of herd immunity (which is a moving target depending on population), then mask wearing could be considered a population characteristic and included in the model. This would net "drop" herd immunity levels.

[tghw]

The distinction comes down to factors that change (behaviors, mandates, regulations, etc.) and those that don't (age, gender, etc.).

Saying we've reached herd immunity given behavioral changes is largely meaningless, as most people do not want to continue these behavioral changes indefinitely. One of the biggest changes that you failed to acknowledge is that people are not in contact with nearly as many people in their day to day life as they were before. Working from home, kids not in school, limited social interactions, etc.

It's not herd immunity if a return to previous behaviors negates the immunity.

[nickthemagicman]

What's going to be interesting is: after coronavirus is over and we're down to non pandemic levels of infections in the states, restrictions are lifted, and people start going about their pre-pandemic business, I wonder what the explanation will be as to why there's a permanent immunity.

How long will people continue to flog the 'people are continuing to be responsible' horse?

What will it take to finally accept that there's a physiological immunity taking place giving herd immunity?

[gloriosoc]

Behavior is a variable that can and should be included in a herd immunity model. The percent immunity needed to achieve Herd immunity will change with behavior. That doesn't negate that it's happening. Louisiana and Florida are pretty much open and seeing a drop in cases. Bars aren't open indoors- but I think we can live with that for a little while?