3 ms·

General comment: posting a random study and drawing conclusions from it seems dangerous. This kind of science is hard, so we usually rely on a spread of evidenc

General comment: posting a random study and drawing conclusions from it seems dangerous. This kind of science is hard, so we usually rely on a spread of evidence from many sources, building literature until conclusions are more robust - often through meta studies. I think it’s a bit dangerous for an intelligent HN reader to go looking at scientific papers without properly taking a systematic approach to cover all bases. A much sounder, yet less exciting, method is to rely on the advice of expert organisations such as the WHO.

ekianjo 6y ago
Too bad the WHO repeatedly lost all credibility with their experts advices they kept reversing month after month.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  If you actually take the time to read their advice, it hasn't changed much.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Not talking about their advice only, WHO has been actively spreading false information since the beginning of the crisis, in full accord with China's narrative https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavi...
lbeltrame 6y ago
There are places that keep on doing "open evidence reviews" that summarize key finding in transmission, cures, etc. Oxford's CEBM is one (https://www.cebm.net https://www.cebm.net) and someone else has posted another for transmission in children here.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  Thank you. Why isn't this the general level of discussion, rather than "The WHO are spooks"? I blame social media.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Counterpoint: it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. The motivation was moral, but it seems such organisations are 'happy' to use misinformation to the public; that is, they can't fully be trusted. Finding trustworthy, competent voices that one can follow is v.hard. Academic papers, and the response of academics that have some trust [with you] already, are more useful than supranational organisations whose declarations might not be entirely aligned with promulgation of truth.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  > it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. This thinking has circulated widely on social media, but I don't see evidence for it. The current WHO line is pretty much the same - they do accept that it may help to wear a mask e.g. in supermarkets, but they're pretty clear that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is thin. The WHO is not a conspiracy.
  - rattray 6y ago
    I don't think you have to consider the WHO a "conspiracy" in order to lose trust in them. For example, many other sources (which tend to elucidate their sources and reasoning more fully) claim, convincingly, that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong. When WHO claims that it's weak, I lose trust in them.
    - randomsearch 6y ago
      > that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong (genuine question) please could you provide a link to that? I've seen one meta-study that people quote, but I've not seen any evidence that community mask wearing is a net positive in practice.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    I'm not even sure what I would do in their situation: Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to lie there (akin to people who say "vaccines are perfectly safe" - the info leaflet disproves that), but it does mean if you're searching for a source of ground truth that you can't rely on them. No conspiracy, other than that needed to protect global populations, is required. I think you'd agree with me that WHO are conspiring to protect the health of global populations. That they would hold this goal above the goal of providing information that is absolutely true is not especially surprising, I think. FWIW: WHO updated the information later such that they offered different mask advice per country (to my recollection), which seems anomalous unless one considers that the advice is tailored according to whether countries had secured supplies. The advice for UK went from "masks do nothing" to "you should wear a mask".

ekianjo 6y ago

Too bad the WHO repeatedly lost all credibility with their experts advices they kept reversing month after month.

randomsearch 6y ago
If you actually take the time to read their advice, it hasn't changed much.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Not talking about their advice only, WHO has been actively spreading false information since the beginning of the crisis, in full accord with China's narrative https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavi...

lbeltrame 6y ago

There are places that keep on doing "open evidence reviews" that summarize key finding in transmission, cures, etc. Oxford's CEBM is one (https://www.cebm.net https://www.cebm.net) and someone else has posted another for transmission in children here.

randomsearch 6y ago
Thank you. Why isn't this the general level of discussion, rather than "The WHO are spooks"? I blame social media.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Counterpoint: it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. The motivation was moral, but it seems such organisations are 'happy' to use misinformation to the public; that is, they can't fully be trusted. Finding trustworthy, competent voices that one can follow is v.hard. Academic papers, and the response of academics that have some trust [with you] already, are more useful than supranational organisations whose declarations might not be entirely aligned with promulgation of truth.

randomsearch 6y ago
> it strikes me that WHO basically lied about masks early on to avoid a panic that compromised mask acquisition for medical needs. This thinking has circulated widely on social media, but I don't see evidence for it. The current WHO line is pretty much the same - they do accept that it may help to wear a mask e.g. in supermarkets, but they're pretty clear that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is thin. The WHO is not a conspiracy.
- rattray 6y ago
  I don't think you have to consider the WHO a "conspiracy" in order to lose trust in them. For example, many other sources (which tend to elucidate their sources and reasoning more fully) claim, convincingly, that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong. When WHO claims that it's weak, I lose trust in them.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    > that the evidence for community mask wearing being a net positive is quite strong (genuine question) please could you provide a link to that? I've seen one meta-study that people quote, but I've not seen any evidence that community mask wearing is a net positive in practice.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  I'm not even sure what I would do in their situation: Do you "lie" (maybe by omission; at least going against the current {at the time} scientific consensus) by saying that 'public mask-wearing provides no benefit' [that's to my recollection their advice around February time when I was considering buying masks] in order to maintain supplies for medical personnel? Or, do you say 'masks limit transmission of ARIs' and risk leaving medical need of masks unfulfilled because mass panic has decimated the supplies? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to lie there (akin to people who say "vaccines are perfectly safe" - the info leaflet disproves that), but it does mean if you're searching for a source of ground truth that you can't rely on them. No conspiracy, other than that needed to protect global populations, is required. I think you'd agree with me that WHO are conspiring to protect the health of global populations. That they would hold this goal above the goal of providing information that is absolutely true is not especially surprising, I think. FWIW: WHO updated the information later such that they offered different mask advice per country (to my recollection), which seems anomalous unless one considers that the advice is tailored according to whether countries had secured supplies. The advice for UK went from "masks do nothing" to "you should wear a mask".