4 ms·

COVID has really taught me the limitations of data journalism and data science. Both presume trust in the data collectors and data communicators, and many peopl

COVID has really taught me the limitations of data journalism and data science. Both presume trust in the data collectors and data communicators, and many people simply do not. I think it would be much better to let people "test it" for themselves. Let them be the scientists, ask them basic questions. You can do this with a kid: 1) Where is the virus in our body? (answer: in the lungs) 2) What does it feel like to wear a mask? (answer: hot/stuffy) 3) Why does it feel hot/stuffy? (answer: the mask is keeping your exhalation closer to you) 4) If masks block your breath, and your breath has the virus, does that not then mean that masks block the virus? (answer: yes) Bonus) Suppose masks don't actually block the virus that well, say by only 10%. Will they still affect the chain of transmission (yes, its "multiplicative": 90-> 81%->72%->...) This "psuedo-experiment" would not be up to snuff for a journal, but conversations are not publications. Its better to make assumptions and make deductive arguments, because then you don't need to rely on trust in scientific institutions.

Spooky23 6y ago
I think it’s more a case study of how information warfare impacts public perception. IMO, the higher quality media outlets have done a pretty good job in a field full of disinformation and propaganda. Unfortunately, low information citizens are attracted to increasingly fringe sources. My brother owns a marina, and they are struggling with customers and staff who refuse to follow protocols and cite fairly crazy sources to refute things.
GuB-42 6y ago
Maybe suitable for small kids, but oversimplified. 1) The virus is not only in the lungs, but it is not important here, pass. Maybe insist on the fact it can be in the nose, to encourage people to put their mask on their nose. 2) Good observation 3) That the wrong part. Hot means that heat is trapped, but air definitely isn't, you wouldn't be able to breathe otherwise. That you can't breathe with masks is a common argument used by anti-maskers, and many times shown wrong. Masks can keep your breath closer to you in the sense that you don't project it as far because it makes it slower and more diffuse. It also has a chance to trap droplets containing the virus. 4) masks don't block your breath in fact surgical masks are more effective and more breathable than cotton masks. That's because surgical masks are optimized to stop viruses and let air through.
- biophysboy 6y ago
  All of your points are true, and would be brought up by an informed adult or smart kid, but notice how none of them defeat the underlying deductive argument. Simplicity is its strength. If anything, letting them make it complicated by questioning assumptions and revising them will just convince them more, because now it’s sort of their argument, not somebody else’s. 1) It’s not just in our lungs, but in our entire “breathing system”. Still need to control the breath. 2) Masks don’t block oxygen, but they block the wet part of the breath at least somewhat. The wet part is the dangerous part. You could go back and forth with a so-called “anti-masker” and you’d prob be leagues ahead of where you’d be if you shared a masks article.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    That's easy to turn around on you. Here's a simple argument: death rates from COVID are about the same as a regular flu season in places that didn't do dumb things like close hospitals and send sick people into care homes. In many places they're around the level of flu. But flu is always around. If we don't wear masks all the time, then why do we need to wear them now? There is no logical answer to this except "you should wear masks permanently" which many people will never accept, as the benefits are simply too low to justify the consequent problems.
    - misanthropian00 6y ago
      Death rates may not be the only problem though. There is evidence that covid damages the heart and sometimes even the brain. This damage might cause many deaths years from now.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        There was also evidence COVID was a terribly deadly disease that would kill at minimum 500,000 healthy people (in the UK), thus requiring urgent and massive shutdowns. Turned out to all be completely false. So my point stands. If you're going to make simple pro-mask arguments, be prepared for equally simple counterarguments. Excess death data says 2020 is for most countries an unremarkable basically normal year. Even in the few where it's not, it's still comparable to prior years when nobody noticed anything at the time, so hardly abnormal. "Long COVID" may be the usual problem of slow recovery from viral infection that occasionally happens, or it may hardly be real given the broad array of vague symptoms that are now allowed to characterise the disease. Everything from a runny nose to a headache to full blown pneumonia is classifiable as COVID these days. That means many people with other issues will end up with spurious correlations of the form, "I had COVID symptoms and now I am fatigued" when the cause may not be "COVID". The apparent lack of consistency in these reports, the wildly varying time between infection and onset, etc, all suggests there's a lot of noise in these reports. Definitely not a part of any simple argument for mask wearing.

Spooky23 6y ago

I think it’s more a case study of how information warfare impacts public perception. IMO, the higher quality media outlets have done a pretty good job in a field full of disinformation and propaganda. Unfortunately, low information citizens are attracted to increasingly fringe sources. My brother owns a marina, and they are struggling with customers and staff who refuse to follow protocols and cite fairly crazy sources to refute things.

GuB-42 6y ago

Maybe suitable for small kids, but oversimplified. 1) The virus is not only in the lungs, but it is not important here, pass. Maybe insist on the fact it can be in the nose, to encourage people to put their mask on their nose. 2) Good observation 3) That the wrong part. Hot means that heat is trapped, but air definitely isn't, you wouldn't be able to breathe otherwise. That you can't breathe with masks is a common argument used by anti-maskers, and many times shown wrong. Masks can keep your breath closer to you in the sense that you don't project it as far because it makes it slower and more diffuse. It also has a chance to trap droplets containing the virus. 4) masks don't block your breath in fact surgical masks are more effective and more breathable than cotton masks. That's because surgical masks are optimized to stop viruses and let air through.

biophysboy 6y ago
All of your points are true, and would be brought up by an informed adult or smart kid, but notice how none of them defeat the underlying deductive argument. Simplicity is its strength. If anything, letting them make it complicated by questioning assumptions and revising them will just convince them more, because now it’s sort of their argument, not somebody else’s. 1) It’s not just in our lungs, but in our entire “breathing system”. Still need to control the breath. 2) Masks don’t block oxygen, but they block the wet part of the breath at least somewhat. The wet part is the dangerous part. You could go back and forth with a so-called “anti-masker” and you’d prob be leagues ahead of where you’d be if you shared a masks article.
- thu2111 6y ago
  That's easy to turn around on you. Here's a simple argument: death rates from COVID are about the same as a regular flu season in places that didn't do dumb things like close hospitals and send sick people into care homes. In many places they're around the level of flu. But flu is always around. If we don't wear masks all the time, then why do we need to wear them now? There is no logical answer to this except "you should wear masks permanently" which many people will never accept, as the benefits are simply too low to justify the consequent problems.
  - misanthropian00 6y ago
    Death rates may not be the only problem though. There is evidence that covid damages the heart and sometimes even the brain. This damage might cause many deaths years from now.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      There was also evidence COVID was a terribly deadly disease that would kill at minimum 500,000 healthy people (in the UK), thus requiring urgent and massive shutdowns. Turned out to all be completely false. So my point stands. If you're going to make simple pro-mask arguments, be prepared for equally simple counterarguments. Excess death data says 2020 is for most countries an unremarkable basically normal year. Even in the few where it's not, it's still comparable to prior years when nobody noticed anything at the time, so hardly abnormal. "Long COVID" may be the usual problem of slow recovery from viral infection that occasionally happens, or it may hardly be real given the broad array of vague symptoms that are now allowed to characterise the disease. Everything from a runny nose to a headache to full blown pneumonia is classifiable as COVID these days. That means many people with other issues will end up with spurious correlations of the form, "I had COVID symptoms and now I am fatigued" when the cause may not be "COVID". The apparent lack of consistency in these reports, the wildly varying time between infection and onset, etc, all suggests there's a lot of noise in these reports. Definitely not a part of any simple argument for mask wearing.