5 ms·

This article speaks in a very authoritative tone, but the assertions aren't fully backed by the research it links to. And it bothers me that the quote, "dramat

This article speaks in a very authoritative tone, but the assertions aren't fully backed by the research it links to. And it bothers me that the quote, "dramatically less likely" is not a quote from the linked research, but seemingly just a pull quote of the article itself. I support people wearing masks, even if it turned out to only be marginally better than not wearing one, but this article is borderline overreaching.

dmead 6y ago
why even bring that up? whats the benefit?
- idle_zealot 6y ago
  Intellectual honesty?
  - sunopener 6y ago
    Intellect is fundamentally incompatible with honesty.
    - datameta 6y ago
      Interesting viewpoint. Humor me, if you will?
- reificator 6y ago
  Not giving more ammunition to the anti-mask crowd by knowingly spreading misinformation?
- gxqoz 6y ago
  If in fact it's still very likely you can get severe Covid while wearing a mask, then sending the message that "wearing a mask will almost certainly prevent severe Covid" will likely lead people to engage in riskier situations with their masks. For instance, it could be that going to a nightclub while wearing a mask is still pretty risky. Telling people that wearing a mask eliminates risk would likely send more mask-wearing people to said nightclubs. Of course, if wearing a mask was in fact extremely effective at stopping severe Covid, then one could make the argument that it's now worth doing these higher risk activities.
- rlayton2 6y ago
  In the long run, it's worse to make overstating claims because it undermines trust in the original message. The main criticism of conspiracy theorists (pick you brand) is that they do not follow the evidence trail. If you want to be on "the right side", you need to ensure your claims are better backed up, otherwise its just two sides making stuff up until one person gives up. As with OP, I support wearing masks and do so all the time if needed (not American though, so it doesn't have the political bent here it does in the states).
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  The truth can be valuable in ways that aren't immediately evident. For instance, if evidence emerges that masks have some harmful effect, an over-estimation of the protective effect of masks can lead to a skewed cost-benefit analysis that results in a net-harmful pro-mask policy remaining in place. Lies can also undermine credibility, and sometimes necessitate more lies to cover up for the first, leading to less effective and efficient communication amongst people.
- matz1 6y ago
  because wearing mask can be uncomfortable, why wear if the benefit is only minimal
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    It's not about the benefit for you. The whole point of wearing a non-N95 mask is to prevent your breathing from infecting others if you happen to be asymptomatic but positive.
    - matz1 6y ago
      I understand that. The point still remain, why wear if it only minimally prevent from infecting others.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- purple-again 6y ago
  I’m not sure if it’s just as critical or actually more critical to make sure “your side” is not disseminating fake news.
IncRnd 6y ago
> but the assertions aren't fully backed by the researched it links to. To say the least... The article links to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 to support, "Most infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists believe that the coronavirus is mostly spread by airborne droplets". However, the linked study concludes, " All told, current understanding about SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still limited. There are no perfect experimental data proving or disproving droplet vs aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
- re 6y ago
  That's not the conclusion, and cherry-picking those sentences is misleading because makes it sound like the article is citing a totally inconclusive paper. The next sentence is "The balance of evidence, however, seems inconsistent with aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 particularly in well-ventilated spaces."
  - gojomo 6y ago
    That "particularly in well-ventilated spaces" is doing a lot of work. In normal times, people spend a lot of time with other people in not-very-well-ventilated spaces - including, unfortunately, many conference-rooms, classrooms, small shops, bars/nightclubs, etc. So in all those actual places, Covid-19 is aerosol-transmissible. Also, in just the few weeks since that JAMA discussion, more actual examples of Covid-19 almost certainly transmitted by aerosols have been compiled; see for instance study/stories linked at: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    I didn't use the word "conclusion". The article does conclude with the sentence I quoted as well as what you quoted. If you honestly read what I wrote, you would see that what I wrote is in the linked page, as is what you wrote, and the sentence from each of our posts is orthogonal to the support that was being sought for the article. I was not restating the conclusion, but showing how the original article was quoting support from a place that did not support what was being said.
cbsks 6y ago
The linked article seems to back it up: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8 > In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In this closed setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, the majority of infected patients on the ship (81%) remained asymptomatic, compared with 18% in the cruise ship outbreak without masking. > A report from a pediatric hemodialysis unit in Indiana, where all patients and staff were masked, demonstrated that staff rapidly developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 after exposure to a single symptomatic patient with COVID-19. In the setting of masking, however, none of the new infections was symptomatic. And in a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work, the rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%. An outbreak in a Tyson chicken plant in Arkansas with masking also showed a 95% asymptomatic rate of infection.
- rosywoozlechan 6y ago
  It makes intuitive sense that a face covering would reduce the viral load one is exposed to. I've heard of other studies that have shown that the degree of virus exposure affects outcomes. Those involved exposure time and exposure distance to symptomatic patients with COVID-19. If a face covering reduces the viral load you get exposed to, seems like it would have the same effect as getting a lower dose exposure due to being a greater distance away or because of a reduced exposure time with a contagious individual. I hope more research supports the benefits of masks as it sounds like good news.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
    The viral load thing came up in some podcast I was listening too. So experiments were done with the flu Or cold virus and a smaller load resulted in a less severe infection. They obviously can’t repeat the experiment with COVID. They suspect the same thing happens but they aren’t sure. Oh the off chance it really is true, I’m wearing a mask!
gojomo 6y ago
While there's no single slam-dunk study yet proving this with SARS-Cov-2 (Covid-19), there's so much mutually-reinforcing suggestive evidence that the authoritative tone of this UCSF professor/researcher/doctor seems justified, to me. In particular, there's a lot of evidence from other similar respiratory viruses. Now also, there are patterns observed in masked-vs-unmasked Covid-19-hotspots for which the idea "masks cut initial infectious dose enough to make infections milder or totally asymptomatic" fits really well. You can watch Dr. Gandhi presenting on this topic with slides & multiple paper/incident references, during a UCSF 'Grand Rounds' a few weeks ago - here's a direct link to where her talk starts: https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w?t=1740 https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w?t=1740
rriepe 6y ago
It compares the Diamond Princess outbreak, which occurred in the hot spot temperature range (40s-50s F, mid-humidity), to a cruise around the Antarctic peninsula, which looks like it was about 20 degrees below the hot spot range and way outside the humidity range.

dmead 6y ago

why even bring that up? whats the benefit?

idle_zealot 6y ago
Intellectual honesty?
- sunopener 6y ago
  Intellect is fundamentally incompatible with honesty.
  - datameta 6y ago
    Interesting viewpoint. Humor me, if you will?
reificator 6y ago
Not giving more ammunition to the anti-mask crowd by knowingly spreading misinformation?
gxqoz 6y ago
If in fact it's still very likely you can get severe Covid while wearing a mask, then sending the message that "wearing a mask will almost certainly prevent severe Covid" will likely lead people to engage in riskier situations with their masks. For instance, it could be that going to a nightclub while wearing a mask is still pretty risky. Telling people that wearing a mask eliminates risk would likely send more mask-wearing people to said nightclubs. Of course, if wearing a mask was in fact extremely effective at stopping severe Covid, then one could make the argument that it's now worth doing these higher risk activities.
rlayton2 6y ago
In the long run, it's worse to make overstating claims because it undermines trust in the original message. The main criticism of conspiracy theorists (pick you brand) is that they do not follow the evidence trail. If you want to be on "the right side", you need to ensure your claims are better backed up, otherwise its just two sides making stuff up until one person gives up. As with OP, I support wearing masks and do so all the time if needed (not American though, so it doesn't have the political bent here it does in the states).
CryptoPunk 6y ago
The truth can be valuable in ways that aren't immediately evident. For instance, if evidence emerges that masks have some harmful effect, an over-estimation of the protective effect of masks can lead to a skewed cost-benefit analysis that results in a net-harmful pro-mask policy remaining in place. Lies can also undermine credibility, and sometimes necessitate more lies to cover up for the first, leading to less effective and efficient communication amongst people.
matz1 6y ago
because wearing mask can be uncomfortable, why wear if the benefit is only minimal
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  It's not about the benefit for you. The whole point of wearing a non-N95 mask is to prevent your breathing from infecting others if you happen to be asymptomatic but positive.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I understand that. The point still remain, why wear if it only minimally prevent from infecting others.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
purple-again 6y ago
I’m not sure if it’s just as critical or actually more critical to make sure “your side” is not disseminating fake news.

IncRnd 6y ago

> but the assertions aren't fully backed by the researched it links to. To say the least... The article links to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 to support, "Most infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists believe that the coronavirus is mostly spread by airborne droplets". However, the linked study concludes, " All told, current understanding about SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still limited. There are no perfect experimental data proving or disproving droplet vs aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2."

re 6y ago
That's not the conclusion, and cherry-picking those sentences is misleading because makes it sound like the article is citing a totally inconclusive paper. The next sentence is "The balance of evidence, however, seems inconsistent with aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 particularly in well-ventilated spaces."
- gojomo 6y ago
  That "particularly in well-ventilated spaces" is doing a lot of work. In normal times, people spend a lot of time with other people in not-very-well-ventilated spaces - including, unfortunately, many conference-rooms, classrooms, small shops, bars/nightclubs, etc. So in all those actual places, Covid-19 is aerosol-transmissible. Also, in just the few weeks since that JAMA discussion, more actual examples of Covid-19 almost certainly transmitted by aerosols have been compiled; see for instance study/stories linked at: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I didn't use the word "conclusion". The article does conclude with the sentence I quoted as well as what you quoted. If you honestly read what I wrote, you would see that what I wrote is in the linked page, as is what you wrote, and the sentence from each of our posts is orthogonal to the support that was being sought for the article. I was not restating the conclusion, but showing how the original article was quoting support from a place that did not support what was being said.

cbsks 6y ago

The linked article seems to back it up: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8 > In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In this closed setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR, the majority of infected patients on the ship (81%) remained asymptomatic, compared with 18% in the cruise ship outbreak without masking. > A report from a pediatric hemodialysis unit in Indiana, where all patients and staff were masked, demonstrated that staff rapidly developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 after exposure to a single symptomatic patient with COVID-19. In the setting of masking, however, none of the new infections was symptomatic. And in a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work, the rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%. An outbreak in a Tyson chicken plant in Arkansas with masking also showed a 95% asymptomatic rate of infection.

rosywoozlechan 6y ago
It makes intuitive sense that a face covering would reduce the viral load one is exposed to. I've heard of other studies that have shown that the degree of virus exposure affects outcomes. Those involved exposure time and exposure distance to symptomatic patients with COVID-19. If a face covering reduces the viral load you get exposed to, seems like it would have the same effect as getting a lower dose exposure due to being a greater distance away or because of a reduced exposure time with a contagious individual. I hope more research supports the benefits of masks as it sounds like good news.
- 2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
  The viral load thing came up in some podcast I was listening too. So experiments were done with the flu Or cold virus and a smaller load resulted in a less severe infection. They obviously can’t repeat the experiment with COVID. They suspect the same thing happens but they aren’t sure. Oh the off chance it really is true, I’m wearing a mask!

gojomo 6y ago

While there's no single slam-dunk study yet proving this with SARS-Cov-2 (Covid-19), there's so much mutually-reinforcing suggestive evidence that the authoritative tone of this UCSF professor/researcher/doctor seems justified, to me. In particular, there's a lot of evidence from other similar respiratory viruses. Now also, there are patterns observed in masked-vs-unmasked Covid-19-hotspots for which the idea "masks cut initial infectious dose enough to make infections milder or totally asymptomatic" fits really well. You can watch Dr. Gandhi presenting on this topic with slides & multiple paper/incident references, during a UCSF 'Grand Rounds' a few weeks ago - here's a direct link to where her talk starts: https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w?t=1740 https://youtu.be/Cio3rh6ta3w?t=1740

rriepe 6y ago

It compares the Diamond Princess outbreak, which occurred in the hot spot temperature range (40s-50s F, mid-humidity), to a cruise around the Antarctic peninsula, which looks like it was about 20 degrees below the hot spot range and way outside the humidity range.