27 ms·

This seems like it is casting uncertainty when there is really good evidence that wearing masks is effective. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/ap

This seems like it is casting uncertainty when there is really good evidence that wearing masks is effective. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/04/why-wear-a-mask-may-be-our-best-weapon-to-stop-coronavirus https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/04/why-we...

aahhahahaaa 6y ago
It's effective but it sounds like the fear is that the effectiveness is overhyped (says this specifically in the article)... and I think that's a valid concern. If everyone thinks they can go out wearing a mask and forget about distancing and other measures, then that complicates things. Wearing a mask to go grocery shopping for 20 minutes is also different than say, wearing a mask and sitting in a theater or bar for 2 hours.
- watwut 6y ago
  The actual fear should be from people who dont wear masks, dont wash hands and generally act like covid-19 is a hoax. It does not even matter whether the non-mask wearer is not wearing it because he believes mask is not effective, mask is not needed due to covid not existing or mask is sign of being fearful and one gotta project bravery. Mask wearer who skipped washing hands once or approached someone 1.5 meters is still good.
  - timr 6y ago
    "The actual fear should be from people who don't wear masks" I don't understand this. The actual fear should be any form of scientific misinformation. Eventually, the truth will be known, and if "scientists" are deemed to be advocating for policies that aren't supported by science, it will hurt science in the long run. On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it.
    - BolexNOLA 6y ago
      >On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it. I have seen this repeated many times but have not seen any evidence that really supports it. It just sounds like a common behavior. I would imagine the cross-section of people who are already going to act like it wasn’t a big deal and people who wear a mask that act like it’s not a big deal is already substantial. And while I also don’t have any data, I think it is as common sense as the other assumption and thus illustrates my point.
      - noodlesUK 6y ago
        Anecdotally, people give you a fair bit more space when you’re wearing a mask and clearly taking precautions than if you aren’t. I’d argue that in the current political climate, mask wearing might actually improve distancing measures. The people who aren’t wearing masks just don’t seem to give a shit. It’s a social signal about if you care about covid these days. I’m saddened that we can’t just make tonnes of melt blown and make n95s (that imo are more comfortable than normal masks cause they aren’t touching your lips) for anyone who wants them.
        runnr_az 6y ago
        For what it’s worth, thus seems correct in my experience. I expected people to just throw on masks and behave “normally,” but the opposite seems to have happened - it serves as a reminder of the seriousness of the situation.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        Also an anecdote, but I know many people IRL who have said "The reason we should be able to open back up is everyone knows to wear a mask now." That doesn't mean people shouldn't wear masks, but... it's definitely the wrong takeaway.
    - watwut 6y ago
      > On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it. But you are just making that one up. You don't have studies showing people wearing masks taking more risk than non-masks wearing people. Also, the scientists talk about effectiveness of masks it is not like I had seen a single one claiming it is perfect. This whole argument is just being manipulative. Trying to pretend it is all about science and precision, when it is nothing like that.
- bitexploder 6y ago
  Also, well fitted N95 style masks are very different from a loose mask around the face.
  - BolexNOLA 6y ago
    Still makes a world of difference though, especially because your mask (unless N95) isn’t for you as much as it’s for others. If two people interacting are both wearing - even loose fitting - cloth masks over their nose and mouth, the chance of spreading disease is orders of magnitude less.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      We do not actually know that. That is the point.
      - cjbenedikt 6y ago
        We actually DO know that
        gridlockd 6y ago
        Well, then where is the scientific evidence that simple masks reduce chance of spread by an order of magnitude, as described? There is none, because the science hasn't been done. There's a viral JPEG on the internet that claims this, it's just that. If we don't have that evidence, the we don't really know, plain and simple. That's not to say people should stop wearing masks. It's plausible that they help. It's just that we don't know the extent to which they help.
      - cjbenedikt 6y ago
        Widespread Use of Face Masks Could Save Tens of Thousands of Lives - https://www.npr.org/2020/07/03/886905055/widespread-use-of-face-masks-could-save-tens-of-thousands-of-lives-models-projec https://www.npr.org/2020/07/03/886905055/widespread-use-of-f...
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Masks have always been controversial, but I think what we have seen in terms of outcomes in the NY/NJ/CT area shows that they likely have some effect. Usually the studies that knock masks compare them against people following good hand washing protocol. Mask vs. person with good hygiene is different than the typical slob you find on the street.
superkuh 6y ago
There's no uncertainty that unfit around the nose masks have giant centimeter squared open gaps. For protection of the wearer they're not good. Objectively in tests with similar gaps the rating is N30-N40. There needs to be a strong and lasting push for increased N95 mask production or at least purchasing. Pretending that ineffective unfit masks (of any material!) can fill the role of real masks does real damage and needs to stop. If everyone could rotate a set of N95 masks when indoors then spread could really be stopped. Even a synthetic/cotton/synthetic mask would be quite effective if they'd just incorporate metal nose bridge with foam.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Better-fitting masks made of non-woven cloth might help, but the focus on N95 and the confidence that "spread could really be stopped" by wearing them is exactly the kind of overconfidence the article warns against. There's no known evidence supporting the idea that good masks are a silver bullet.
  - watwut 6y ago
    N95 is what doctors wear to generally not get sick while working. Had there been enough of them, it would likely do a lot. But back to real world, cloth masks is what we got.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I think I've read that N95 masks are in fact inferior to other kinds for "civilians" and I don't altogether believe this is propaganda to conserve them. It makes sense, doesn't it, that N95 masks filter air coming in, not out? My impression is the valve in masks that have them is a sign that it's not protecting others from you - the point is to let air out easily. There is an asymmetry between healthcare workers and the public - in a hospital, you have one non-infected person surrounded by a lot of infected people, while elsewhere, it's the opposite. I see a lot of people wearing surgical masks, and having just googled and read a page on 3M's site, it mentions: "Surgical/procedure or “medical” facemasks are designed to help keep spit and mucous generated by the wearer from reaching a patient or medical equipment. Some surgical/procedure masks do contain filter media but as they may not be designed to form a seal to the face, and have not been certified to meet all of the performance standards of a respirator, they should not be used to help reduce exposures to airborne particles" I feel like this is a simple difference that people can't comprehend due to a very primitive equation of protecting oneself and protecting others. There is a difference and it should inform our behavior. Edit: to clarify, I meant to contrast the N95 masks with a valve, that seem to make more sense for health care workers, with the surgical masks that seem to make more sense for the public.
timr 6y ago
On the contrary, there's actually very little evidence that masks are effective for the general public. Particularly for cloth masks, the evidence is essentially non-existent. You're citing an article by Jeremy Howard, who is quoted in the OP, and whose opinion is directly rebutted. Michael Osterholm of CIDRAP has written a rather scathing summary of the data for cloth masks, and the political and social machinations that have gotten us where we are. He calls out Jeremy Howard as a particularly vocal spreader of scientific misinformation on the topic: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/special-ep-masks https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... (edit: how can you possibly downvote a link to a factual source that is cited in the article? Consider your bias.)
- cmiles74 6y ago
  In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect that there would be studies on the effects of cloth masks. Up until the quarantine began the reasonable assumption was that if you needed a mask you wore the one appropriate to your task. I don't think cloth masks were in widespread use until these masks became scarce. Maybe some studies are happening now. Even so, it probably makes more sense to encourage people to purchase more reliable masks.
  - timr 6y ago
    "In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect that there would be studies on the effects of cloth masks." That's fine, but there are lots of plausible interventions that have little/no evidence, and we don't mandate those by law. Why this one? For example, the Lancet study commissioned by the WHO found that eye protection is about as supported by the available literature as surgical masks. Why aren't we all required to wear goggles? I believe that "science" should not be used to mandate actions that have no scientific data backing them. "it probably makes more sense to encourage people to purchase more reliable masks." The issue there is still shortages. I don't buy surgical or n95 masks, because other people need them more than I do.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > For example, the Lancet study commissioned by the WHO found that eye protection is about as supported by the available literature as surgical masks. Why aren't we all required to wear goggles? Because masks are being recommended to work on outgoing virus. Unless you've evidence respiratory viruses spread significantly via jets of air emitted via your eyeballs, this is a weird argument.
jph00 6y ago
Thanks for sharing that article - I wrote it months ago, and there's been plenty more papers that have come out since, but there's really not much I'd change in it today. The science has only become more clear. I think the 538 article really under-states the evidence. I'm quoted in it, but only about my thoughts on the political situation. I actually pointed out to the author that the science is stronger than any other intervention we have.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  So you're Jeremy Howard? Hi. Someone on this thread recommended this article by yourself, on The Conversation, that I managed to miss a couple of months ago (I can't find again the post where the link to the article was given, apologies): https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507 https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-co... From what I can see in the article, you were first convinced that masks should be worn after watching a youtube video. Then, having been convinced by the video you found more evidence to support your conviction. I quote from the article: The research that first convinced me was a laser light-scattering experiment. Researchers from the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and count how many droplets of saliva were flung into the air by a person talking with and without a face mask. The paper was only recently published officially, but I saw a YouTube video showing the experiment in early March. The results are shockingly obvious in the video. I have to say, this rings all manner of alarm bells. For example, a video on youtube cannot be seen as evidence of anything, even if it's from the NIH; that video could at best be seen as evidence of a likely mechanism for the spread of the virus, but evidence of a mechanism that could produce an effect is not evidence that the mechanism produces that effect; etc. In short, all this is not "strong science", even if it led to strong convictions. In any case, we all have to remember -data scientists first of all- that "data science" is not a "science" in the sense that e.g. epidemiology is a science and in a time of a public health crisis, the stage should be left clear for the relevant experts.

aahhahahaaa 6y ago

It's effective but it sounds like the fear is that the effectiveness is overhyped (says this specifically in the article)... and I think that's a valid concern. If everyone thinks they can go out wearing a mask and forget about distancing and other measures, then that complicates things. Wearing a mask to go grocery shopping for 20 minutes is also different than say, wearing a mask and sitting in a theater or bar for 2 hours.

watwut 6y ago
The actual fear should be from people who dont wear masks, dont wash hands and generally act like covid-19 is a hoax. It does not even matter whether the non-mask wearer is not wearing it because he believes mask is not effective, mask is not needed due to covid not existing or mask is sign of being fearful and one gotta project bravery. Mask wearer who skipped washing hands once or approached someone 1.5 meters is still good.
- timr 6y ago
  "The actual fear should be from people who don't wear masks" I don't understand this. The actual fear should be any form of scientific misinformation. Eventually, the truth will be known, and if "scientists" are deemed to be advocating for policies that aren't supported by science, it will hurt science in the long run. On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it.
  - BolexNOLA 6y ago
    >On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it. I have seen this repeated many times but have not seen any evidence that really supports it. It just sounds like a common behavior. I would imagine the cross-section of people who are already going to act like it wasn’t a big deal and people who wear a mask that act like it’s not a big deal is already substantial. And while I also don’t have any data, I think it is as common sense as the other assumption and thus illustrates my point.
    - noodlesUK 6y ago
      Anecdotally, people give you a fair bit more space when you’re wearing a mask and clearly taking precautions than if you aren’t. I’d argue that in the current political climate, mask wearing might actually improve distancing measures. The people who aren’t wearing masks just don’t seem to give a shit. It’s a social signal about if you care about covid these days. I’m saddened that we can’t just make tonnes of melt blown and make n95s (that imo are more comfortable than normal masks cause they aren’t touching your lips) for anyone who wants them.
      - runnr_az 6y ago
        For what it’s worth, thus seems correct in my experience. I expected people to just throw on masks and behave “normally,” but the opposite seems to have happened - it serves as a reminder of the seriousness of the situation.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      Also an anecdote, but I know many people IRL who have said "The reason we should be able to open back up is everyone knows to wear a mask now." That doesn't mean people shouldn't wear masks, but... it's definitely the wrong takeaway.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it. But you are just making that one up. You don't have studies showing people wearing masks taking more risk than non-masks wearing people. Also, the scientists talk about effectiveness of masks it is not like I had seen a single one claiming it is perfect. This whole argument is just being manipulative. Trying to pretend it is all about science and precision, when it is nothing like that.
bitexploder 6y ago
Also, well fitted N95 style masks are very different from a loose mask around the face.
- BolexNOLA 6y ago
  Still makes a world of difference though, especially because your mask (unless N95) isn’t for you as much as it’s for others. If two people interacting are both wearing - even loose fitting - cloth masks over their nose and mouth, the chance of spreading disease is orders of magnitude less.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    We do not actually know that. That is the point.
    - cjbenedikt 6y ago
      We actually DO know that
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        Well, then where is the scientific evidence that simple masks reduce chance of spread by an order of magnitude, as described? There is none, because the science hasn't been done. There's a viral JPEG on the internet that claims this, it's just that. If we don't have that evidence, the we don't really know, plain and simple. That's not to say people should stop wearing masks. It's plausible that they help. It's just that we don't know the extent to which they help.
    - cjbenedikt 6y ago
      Widespread Use of Face Masks Could Save Tens of Thousands of Lives - https://www.npr.org/2020/07/03/886905055/widespread-use-of-face-masks-could-save-tens-of-thousands-of-lives-models-projec https://www.npr.org/2020/07/03/886905055/widespread-use-of-f...
Spooky23 6y ago
Masks have always been controversial, but I think what we have seen in terms of outcomes in the NY/NJ/CT area shows that they likely have some effect. Usually the studies that knock masks compare them against people following good hand washing protocol. Mask vs. person with good hygiene is different than the typical slob you find on the street.

superkuh 6y ago

There's no uncertainty that unfit around the nose masks have giant centimeter squared open gaps. For protection of the wearer they're not good. Objectively in tests with similar gaps the rating is N30-N40. There needs to be a strong and lasting push for increased N95 mask production or at least purchasing. Pretending that ineffective unfit masks (of any material!) can fill the role of real masks does real damage and needs to stop. If everyone could rotate a set of N95 masks when indoors then spread could really be stopped. Even a synthetic/cotton/synthetic mask would be quite effective if they'd just incorporate metal nose bridge with foam.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Better-fitting masks made of non-woven cloth might help, but the focus on N95 and the confidence that "spread could really be stopped" by wearing them is exactly the kind of overconfidence the article warns against. There's no known evidence supporting the idea that good masks are a silver bullet.
- watwut 6y ago
  N95 is what doctors wear to generally not get sick while working. Had there been enough of them, it would likely do a lot. But back to real world, cloth masks is what we got.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I think I've read that N95 masks are in fact inferior to other kinds for "civilians" and I don't altogether believe this is propaganda to conserve them. It makes sense, doesn't it, that N95 masks filter air coming in, not out? My impression is the valve in masks that have them is a sign that it's not protecting others from you - the point is to let air out easily. There is an asymmetry between healthcare workers and the public - in a hospital, you have one non-infected person surrounded by a lot of infected people, while elsewhere, it's the opposite. I see a lot of people wearing surgical masks, and having just googled and read a page on 3M's site, it mentions: "Surgical/procedure or “medical” facemasks are designed to help keep spit and mucous generated by the wearer from reaching a patient or medical equipment. Some surgical/procedure masks do contain filter media but as they may not be designed to form a seal to the face, and have not been certified to meet all of the performance standards of a respirator, they should not be used to help reduce exposures to airborne particles" I feel like this is a simple difference that people can't comprehend due to a very primitive equation of protecting oneself and protecting others. There is a difference and it should inform our behavior. Edit: to clarify, I meant to contrast the N95 masks with a valve, that seem to make more sense for health care workers, with the surgical masks that seem to make more sense for the public.

timr 6y ago

On the contrary, there's actually very little evidence that masks are effective for the general public. Particularly for cloth masks, the evidence is essentially non-existent. You're citing an article by Jeremy Howard, who is quoted in the OP, and whose opinion is directly rebutted. Michael Osterholm of CIDRAP has written a rather scathing summary of the data for cloth masks, and the political and social machinations that have gotten us where we are. He calls out Jeremy Howard as a particularly vocal spreader of scientific misinformation on the topic: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/special-ep-masks https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars/specia... (edit: how can you possibly downvote a link to a factual source that is cited in the article? Consider your bias.)

cmiles74 6y ago
In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect that there would be studies on the effects of cloth masks. Up until the quarantine began the reasonable assumption was that if you needed a mask you wore the one appropriate to your task. I don't think cloth masks were in widespread use until these masks became scarce. Maybe some studies are happening now. Even so, it probably makes more sense to encourage people to purchase more reliable masks.
- timr 6y ago
  "In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect that there would be studies on the effects of cloth masks." That's fine, but there are lots of plausible interventions that have little/no evidence, and we don't mandate those by law. Why this one? For example, the Lancet study commissioned by the WHO found that eye protection is about as supported by the available literature as surgical masks. Why aren't we all required to wear goggles? I believe that "science" should not be used to mandate actions that have no scientific data backing them. "it probably makes more sense to encourage people to purchase more reliable masks." The issue there is still shortages. I don't buy surgical or n95 masks, because other people need them more than I do.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > For example, the Lancet study commissioned by the WHO found that eye protection is about as supported by the available literature as surgical masks. Why aren't we all required to wear goggles? Because masks are being recommended to work on outgoing virus. Unless you've evidence respiratory viruses spread significantly via jets of air emitted via your eyeballs, this is a weird argument.

jph00 6y ago

Thanks for sharing that article - I wrote it months ago, and there's been plenty more papers that have come out since, but there's really not much I'd change in it today. The science has only become more clear. I think the 538 article really under-states the evidence. I'm quoted in it, but only about my thoughts on the political situation. I actually pointed out to the author that the science is stronger than any other intervention we have.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
So you're Jeremy Howard? Hi. Someone on this thread recommended this article by yourself, on The Conversation, that I managed to miss a couple of months ago (I can't find again the post where the link to the article was given, apologies): https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-coronavirus-the-science-is-simple-and-im-one-of-100-experts-urging-governors-to-require-public-mask-wearing-138507 https://theconversation.com/masks-help-stop-the-spread-of-co... From what I can see in the article, you were first convinced that masks should be worn after watching a youtube video. Then, having been convinced by the video you found more evidence to support your conviction. I quote from the article: The research that first convinced me was a laser light-scattering experiment. Researchers from the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and count how many droplets of saliva were flung into the air by a person talking with and without a face mask. The paper was only recently published officially, but I saw a YouTube video showing the experiment in early March. The results are shockingly obvious in the video. I have to say, this rings all manner of alarm bells. For example, a video on youtube cannot be seen as evidence of anything, even if it's from the NIH; that video could at best be seen as evidence of a likely mechanism for the spread of the virus, but evidence of a mechanism that could produce an effect is not evidence that the mechanism produces that effect; etc. In short, all this is not "strong science", even if it led to strong convictions. In any case, we all have to remember -data scientists first of all- that "data science" is not a "science" in the sense that e.g. epidemiology is a science and in a time of a public health crisis, the stage should be left clear for the relevant experts.