4 ms·

Do you have a source for your claim that masks are less impactful than distancing?

DanBC 6y ago
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > 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. This is clear: physical distance definitely works. Optimal use of masks might work -- that's all they can say, and they need better evidence.
- ksdale 6y ago
  Further down, under "Added value of this study," it says "Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields)"
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Yes, but that's a low certainty finding.
    - ksdale 6y ago
      Low certainty * "large reduction in risk of infection" doesn't equal masks being marginal though, does it? (Not rhetorical, I'm an amateur at statistics) That means they need more data, but if an effect exists, it is large? And I feel like we can reason about this to some extent from first principles - If the virus is spread through particles from faces, then face coverings will decrease the numbers of particles from faces that 1) get into the air and 2) get into peoples' faces, no matter how crappy the face coverings are. It seems more plausible to me that the problem is lack of data rather than incorrect conclusion, which seems like a reasonable interpretation of this particular study?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > 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. This is clear: physical distance definitely works. Optimal use of masks might work -- that's all they can say, and they need better evidence.

ksdale 6y ago
Further down, under "Added value of this study," it says "Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields)"
- DanBC 6y ago
  Yes, but that's a low certainty finding.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    Low certainty * "large reduction in risk of infection" doesn't equal masks being marginal though, does it? (Not rhetorical, I'm an amateur at statistics) That means they need more data, but if an effect exists, it is large? And I feel like we can reason about this to some extent from first principles - If the virus is spread through particles from faces, then face coverings will decrease the numbers of particles from faces that 1) get into the air and 2) get into peoples' faces, no matter how crappy the face coverings are. It seems more plausible to me that the problem is lack of data rather than incorrect conclusion, which seems like a reasonable interpretation of this particular study?