6 ms·

At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific

At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission * Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.

dionidium 6y ago
Yes, those are indeed the reasons they lied about mask-wearing. Their reasons for lying are not in dispute. You may even agree that those are good reasons to lie. But what's also not in dispute is that they did lie. (Perhaps the most charitable thing you could say about your list is that they leaned heavily on the first point in public to justify conserving masks in light of what they believed about the latter two points in private.) Some of you seem to think lying isn’t lying if your heart is pure, but it’s an ordinary word with an uncomplicated meaning.
darawk 6y ago
Point one is equivalent to saying "masks don't work" when communicated in that way to the general public.
- dionidium 6y ago
  It's also a remarkably vacuous thing to say. Of course there's not always scientific evidence for how to respond to new threats in real time. It's perfectly reasonable to make the best decisions you can with the information available. To say what they said is to try to weaponize the totally sensible dictum to "listen to the science" in a context in which they damn well knew that it made no sense (and without any indication that they thought through how their actions might potentially erode public trust in that injunction).
  - DanBC 6y ago
    We have a lot of information about a variety of respiratory viruses and masks, and almost all of it says that masks don't do much. We're getting more information about specifically covid-19, and again that says that masks don't do much.
    - dionidium 6y ago
      I’m going to be as charitable as I can be here: the experts have done a very poor job of communicating the science of mask-wearing to the general public.
jdc 6y ago
First, let's (not be tedious and) agree that the reason healthcare workers wear masks is to prevent airborne infections, especially of SARS-Cov-2. Now clearly your first and second points contradict each other. Furthermore the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Cf. Peer reviewed studies, or lack thereof, supporting the 6 ft "social" distancing protocol and, up until recently, the use of parachutes while jumping out of a plane.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > agree that the reason healthcare workers wear masks is to prevent airborne infections, especially of SARS-Cov-2. There's a big difference between a healthcare professional spending time in close contact with symptomatic people and a member of the public spending time walking round a supermarket. And healthcare professionals do not "wear masks", they wear a full set of PPE including gloves, gown, mask, eye protection. They also have access to running water and soap, and alcohol hand gels. > Peer reviewed studies, or lack thereof, supporting the 6 ft "social" distancing protocol No, we have studies supporting 1 metre distancing and recommending 2 meter distancing. The evidence for this distancing is much stronger than the evidence for mask wearing.
  - jdc 6y ago
    Healthcare professionals absolutely do wear masks. Words have meanings. Let's make our minds up about whether the lack of papers supporting mask-wearing against the virus is reason not to wear their them. Also I'm earnestly interested in your source on the distancing evidence.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      But the mask is part of a set of PPE. By ignoring the eyes you're ignoring an important route. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30313-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > 2019-nCoV transmission through the ocular surface must not be ignored Source for distancing: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
mopsi 6y ago
> * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers. Do hospitals get their stocks from hardware stores in boxes of ten? As much as I've seen, they buy from large distributors who prioritize government agencies and often don't serve individual consumers at all.
- Retric 6y ago
  Many sent people to hardware stores etc to buy masks.
  - mopsi 6y ago
    No doubt, but knowing how much PPE my local hospital goes through in a week, it's difficult to believe that hardware stores etc would any significant impact on PPE availability. The most commonly sold type (FFP1) isn't even allowed in hospital settings.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Will_Parker 6y ago
> There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission It's a disease spread by exhaled droplets. How the heck could masks _not_ work? Why has common sense, as an acceptable way to obtain knowledge, died in the general public?
- dougmany 6y ago
  I am always amused at how effective the There is no scientific evidence line is. That just means it has not been studied. No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    There is a lot of work on respiratory viruses and masks, and none of the RCTs can find a benefit of wearing masks. > No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud. Yes they have. Here's one where they take four patients who have covid-19 and fit them with masks and ask them to cough onto petri dishes. They find covid outside the masks. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
    - themaninthedark 6y ago
      This was binary test. It looks like they were testing if Covid-19 passed through masks or not. They did not look at N95 masks, nor did they look at seeing if the viral load was decreased. "This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing."
    - dougmany 6y ago
      It is interesting that the cotton masks were more effective than the surgical mask: >The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively My point was that if the statement read Scientific evidence shows masks are not effective it would means something. The lack of evidence showing effectiveness does not disprove effectiveness.
a-saleh 6y ago
1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Masks_Against_COVID-19_An_Evidence_Review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Mask... 2. factually, several countries used masks as primary means of reducing transmission, including Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, e.t.c. ... the sense of protection comes from seeing everybody else have mask * clothmasks are enough, no need to stress about single-use disposable surgical masks

dionidium 6y ago

Yes, those are indeed the reasons they lied about mask-wearing. Their reasons for lying are not in dispute. You may even agree that those are good reasons to lie. But what's also not in dispute is that they did lie. (Perhaps the most charitable thing you could say about your list is that they leaned heavily on the first point in public to justify conserving masks in light of what they believed about the latter two points in private.) Some of you seem to think lying isn’t lying if your heart is pure, but it’s an ordinary word with an uncomplicated meaning.

darawk 6y ago

Point one is equivalent to saying "masks don't work" when communicated in that way to the general public.

dionidium 6y ago
It's also a remarkably vacuous thing to say. Of course there's not always scientific evidence for how to respond to new threats in real time. It's perfectly reasonable to make the best decisions you can with the information available. To say what they said is to try to weaponize the totally sensible dictum to "listen to the science" in a context in which they damn well knew that it made no sense (and without any indication that they thought through how their actions might potentially erode public trust in that injunction).
- DanBC 6y ago
  We have a lot of information about a variety of respiratory viruses and masks, and almost all of it says that masks don't do much. We're getting more information about specifically covid-19, and again that says that masks don't do much.
  - dionidium 6y ago
    I’m going to be as charitable as I can be here: the experts have done a very poor job of communicating the science of mask-wearing to the general public.

jdc 6y ago

First, let's (not be tedious and) agree that the reason healthcare workers wear masks is to prevent airborne infections, especially of SARS-Cov-2. Now clearly your first and second points contradict each other. Furthermore the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Cf. Peer reviewed studies, or lack thereof, supporting the 6 ft "social" distancing protocol and, up until recently, the use of parachutes while jumping out of a plane.

DanBC 6y ago
> agree that the reason healthcare workers wear masks is to prevent airborne infections, especially of SARS-Cov-2. There's a big difference between a healthcare professional spending time in close contact with symptomatic people and a member of the public spending time walking round a supermarket. And healthcare professionals do not "wear masks", they wear a full set of PPE including gloves, gown, mask, eye protection. They also have access to running water and soap, and alcohol hand gels. > Peer reviewed studies, or lack thereof, supporting the 6 ft "social" distancing protocol No, we have studies supporting 1 metre distancing and recommending 2 meter distancing. The evidence for this distancing is much stronger than the evidence for mask wearing.
- jdc 6y ago
  Healthcare professionals absolutely do wear masks. Words have meanings. Let's make our minds up about whether the lack of papers supporting mask-wearing against the virus is reason not to wear their them. Also I'm earnestly interested in your source on the distancing evidence.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    But the mask is part of a set of PPE. By ignoring the eyes you're ignoring an important route. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30313-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > 2019-nCoV transmission through the ocular surface must not be ignored Source for distancing: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

mopsi 6y ago

> * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers. Do hospitals get their stocks from hardware stores in boxes of ten? As much as I've seen, they buy from large distributors who prioritize government agencies and often don't serve individual consumers at all.

Retric 6y ago
Many sent people to hardware stores etc to buy masks.
- mopsi 6y ago
  No doubt, but knowing how much PPE my local hospital goes through in a week, it's difficult to believe that hardware stores etc would any significant impact on PPE availability. The most commonly sold type (FFP1) isn't even allowed in hospital settings.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Will_Parker 6y ago

> There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission It's a disease spread by exhaled droplets. How the heck could masks _not_ work? Why has common sense, as an acceptable way to obtain knowledge, died in the general public?

dougmany 6y ago
I am always amused at how effective the There is no scientific evidence line is. That just means it has not been studied. No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud.
- DanBC 6y ago
  There is a lot of work on respiratory viruses and masks, and none of the RCTs can find a benefit of wearing masks. > No one has studied masks on this specific strain? It's new for crying out loud. Yes they have. Here's one where they take four patients who have covid-19 and fit them with masks and ask them to cough onto petri dishes. They find covid outside the masks. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
  - themaninthedark 6y ago
    This was binary test. It looks like they were testing if Covid-19 passed through masks or not. They did not look at N95 masks, nor did they look at seeing if the viral load was decreased. "This experiment did not include N95 masks and does not reflect the actual transmission of infection from patients with COVID-19 wearing different types of masks. We do not know whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing. Further study is needed to recommend whether face masks decrease transmission of virus from asymptomatic individuals or those with suspected COVID-19 who are not coughing."
  - dougmany 6y ago
    It is interesting that the cotton masks were more effective than the surgical mask: >The median viral loads after coughs without a mask, with a surgical mask, and with a cotton mask were 2.56 log copies/mL, 2.42 log copies/mL, and 1.85 log copies/mL, respectively My point was that if the statement read Scientific evidence shows masks are not effective it would means something. The lack of evidence showing effectiveness does not disprove effectiveness.

a-saleh 6y ago

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Masks_Against_COVID-19_An_Evidence_Review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340603522_Face_Mask... 2. factually, several countries used masks as primary means of reducing transmission, including Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, e.t.c. ... the sense of protection comes from seeing everybody else have mask * clothmasks are enough, no need to stress about single-use disposable surgical masks