3 ms·

I don't know if it does or doesn't, because I've never seen any scientific studies on universal mask mandates. That's why I'm asking.

garyrob 6y ago
Somebody posted in response to your original post that it took them 30 seconds to find this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 Does it influence your position on whether or not masks are useful?
- DanBC 6y ago
  That paper says "when you put a mask on, and we immediately ask you to exhale onto a plate, we don't detect virus on that plate". Parent poster isn't asking whether masks trap particles or not (clearly, they do), they're asking a much more interesting and useful question which is if we make everyone wear a mask does that prevent the spread of disease or not? So far, we really don't have much evidence. In this thread, where lots of people are posting links, there's only one decent link posted by gameswithgo here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24589569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24589569
- tboyd47 6y ago
  I replied in place.
CulturalOstrich 6y ago
So until you see one which side of the fence do you land on? Wearing a mask or not wearing one?
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  And importantly - why? Where does the risk/reward chart get so skewed that wearing a piece of cloth that can only barely be considered uncomfortable become an option that's unthinkable? It seems entirely plausible that it could help, what is the harm in trying it? It takes a lot of mental twisting to end up in a place where the potential risk of wearing a mask is larger than the potential reward.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Masks are often recommended as "source control" -- if an infected but asymptomatic person wears one they reduce the risk of spreading the illness to others. The bit that goes unsaid is "a good quality mask, such as a 12 to 16 layer DIY cotton mask, or a properly fitted N95, worn properly, with excellent hand hygiene when putting it on or taking it off". The problem with that framing is that most people quickly drop the "asymptomatic" bit, and so now we have people with symptoms going shopping wearing a mask. That mask isn't going to do much to protect other people, especially when you consider it's likely to be 2 layers of cotton, poorly fitted, with poor hand hygiene.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      But that's not an argument against masks at all. It's an issue with education, but I have no faith that taking away the masks would have those people who are making bad decisions somehow make better decisions.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    I agree with you. It's just some cloth, why is it such a big deal to wear it. I wear one all the time, don't even notice after a while. It's slightly inconvenient, but only trivially so. If we all do it it almost certainly saves a significant number of lives and misery, "evidence" or not. The explanations behind it make perfect sense. And it makes people feel safer as well. All good things, for a trivial inconvenience. The debate reminds me of the debate about smoking. For a long time, smoking "probably" caused cancer. Meaning, almost certainly. There was plenty of evidence. But for a long time, cigarette companies said it wasn't "proven" that it caused cancer. Meaning, let's carry on selling, advertising, consuming it in large quantities. It would take a few more decades to reach the standard of "proof". So smoking continued, people died. Rather than following rational life-optimising behaviour based on the growing body of data.
    - tboyd47 6y ago
      It may not bother you, but it makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you not think it's somewhat entitled and privileged to assume that your own standard of what's convenient and what's not convenient should be applied to everyone? As you illustrated in your example, the medical establishment is often disastrously wrong, so why shouldn't we take their recommendations with a grain of salt?
Voloskaya 6y ago
Finding one of those studies would have taken you way less time that typing your comment. So I think we can all safely assume you are not asking this question in good faith, and you wouldn't believe one such study anyway.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Parent post is right though, we don't have good evidence for mask wearing. Here's a recent, high quality, paper in a high impact paper. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance. There's a bit to unpack here. 1) I don't know anyone wearing a 12 to 16 layer cotton mask. At best they're wearing 4 to 6 layers of cotton. Most people have maybe two layer masks. 2) "paucity of better evidence" isn't how I'd describe something that has great evidence. Look at how that paper describes the evidence for distancing vs masking: > 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). All of the mask evidence says "low certainty". That's from GRADE, and it means "low certainty (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect);"
Loughla 6y ago
So now that several other posters have given you several different links, are you modifying your stance at all? If not, why not?
- wyldfire 6y ago
  Please do not feed the trolls.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    So far only one person has posted a link that answers OPs question, so it was a reasonable question to ask.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

garyrob 6y ago

Somebody posted in response to your original post that it took them 30 seconds to find this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 Does it influence your position on whether or not masks are useful?

DanBC 6y ago
That paper says "when you put a mask on, and we immediately ask you to exhale onto a plate, we don't detect virus on that plate". Parent poster isn't asking whether masks trap particles or not (clearly, they do), they're asking a much more interesting and useful question which is if we make everyone wear a mask does that prevent the spread of disease or not? So far, we really don't have much evidence. In this thread, where lots of people are posting links, there's only one decent link posted by gameswithgo here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24589569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24589569
tboyd47 6y ago
I replied in place.

CulturalOstrich 6y ago

So until you see one which side of the fence do you land on? Wearing a mask or not wearing one?

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
And importantly - why? Where does the risk/reward chart get so skewed that wearing a piece of cloth that can only barely be considered uncomfortable become an option that's unthinkable? It seems entirely plausible that it could help, what is the harm in trying it? It takes a lot of mental twisting to end up in a place where the potential risk of wearing a mask is larger than the potential reward.
- DanBC 6y ago
  Masks are often recommended as "source control" -- if an infected but asymptomatic person wears one they reduce the risk of spreading the illness to others. The bit that goes unsaid is "a good quality mask, such as a 12 to 16 layer DIY cotton mask, or a properly fitted N95, worn properly, with excellent hand hygiene when putting it on or taking it off". The problem with that framing is that most people quickly drop the "asymptomatic" bit, and so now we have people with symptoms going shopping wearing a mask. That mask isn't going to do much to protect other people, especially when you consider it's likely to be 2 layers of cotton, poorly fitted, with poor hand hygiene.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    But that's not an argument against masks at all. It's an issue with education, but I have no faith that taking away the masks would have those people who are making bad decisions somehow make better decisions.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I agree with you. It's just some cloth, why is it such a big deal to wear it. I wear one all the time, don't even notice after a while. It's slightly inconvenient, but only trivially so. If we all do it it almost certainly saves a significant number of lives and misery, "evidence" or not. The explanations behind it make perfect sense. And it makes people feel safer as well. All good things, for a trivial inconvenience. The debate reminds me of the debate about smoking. For a long time, smoking "probably" caused cancer. Meaning, almost certainly. There was plenty of evidence. But for a long time, cigarette companies said it wasn't "proven" that it caused cancer. Meaning, let's carry on selling, advertising, consuming it in large quantities. It would take a few more decades to reach the standard of "proof". So smoking continued, people died. Rather than following rational life-optimising behaviour based on the growing body of data.
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    It may not bother you, but it makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you not think it's somewhat entitled and privileged to assume that your own standard of what's convenient and what's not convenient should be applied to everyone? As you illustrated in your example, the medical establishment is often disastrously wrong, so why shouldn't we take their recommendations with a grain of salt?

Voloskaya 6y ago

Finding one of those studies would have taken you way less time that typing your comment. So I think we can all safely assume you are not asking this question in good faith, and you wouldn't believe one such study anyway.

DanBC 6y ago
Parent post is right though, we don't have good evidence for mask wearing. Here's a recent, high quality, paper in a high impact paper. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > Although direct evidence is limited, the optimum use of face masks, in particular N95 or similar respirators in health-care settings and 12–16-layer cotton or surgical masks in the community, could depend on contextual factors; action is needed at all levels to address the paucity of better evidence. Eye protection might provide additional benefits. Globally collaborative and well conducted studies, including randomised trials, of different personal protective strategies are needed regardless of the challenges, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence could be considered to inform interim guidance. There's a bit to unpack here. 1) I don't know anyone wearing a 12 to 16 layer cotton mask. At best they're wearing 4 to 6 layers of cotton. Most people have maybe two layer masks. 2) "paucity of better evidence" isn't how I'd describe something that has great evidence. Look at how that paper describes the evidence for distancing vs masking: > 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). All of the mask evidence says "low certainty". That's from GRADE, and it means "low certainty (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect could be substantially different from the estimate of the effect);"

Loughla 6y ago

So now that several other posters have given you several different links, are you modifying your stance at all? If not, why not?

wyldfire 6y ago
Please do not feed the trolls.
- DanBC 6y ago
  So far only one person has posted a link that answers OPs question, so it was a reasonable question to ask.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]