3 ms·

This thread is quite embarrassing. The science is clear (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8,)yet https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-0280

This thread is quite embarrassing. The science is clear (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8,)yet https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8,)yet HN still argues against it. But, unlike others, I don't think this very surprising. Many (not all) HN readers, being software engineers, have a high level of pretentiousness that comes from being good in one field, and then carry over that arrogance into areas where they have no clue. Suddenly, you see software engineers pretending they know more than sociologists who have studied the topic for years and dismissing their evidence out of hand or merely responding to the title of the article, without engaging its substance. We see it quite clearly whenever any topic from the social sciences is discussed, be it discrimination, social inequality, government regulation, taxes or the welfare state.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
This site is quite honestly the laughing stock of many communities that recognize this when it happens, which is comically often. It's quite embarrassing indeed.
- Eldt 6y ago
  This community is absolutely riddled with mental disorders
Accacin 6y ago
You're being down-voted but I'm not sure what rules you've broken, so people should not be down-voting you.
the_only_law 6y ago
> Many (not all) HN readers, being software engineers, have a high level of pretentiousness that comes from being good in one field, and then carry over that arrogance into areas where they have no clue. The irony is to watch people get up in arms when an article is posted by some expert in another field who does the same. Its kinda funny thr amount of HN comments I've seen where some user says something along this lines of "author has no idea what they're talking about and should stick to xyz"
dmtroyer 6y ago
your link is busted
ravenstine 6y ago
Most HN comment sections are full of "yes, but..." comments. A post could say "water is wet" and 10 people would pop in to say "yes, but..."
DanBC 6y ago
> Many (not all) HN readers, being software engineers, have a high level of pretentiousness that comes from being good in one field, and then carry over that arrogance into areas where they have no clue. Or maybe they trust scientists who are saying that we don't have good evidence yet? 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. This para says we don't have enough evidence, and what we have isn't particularly good, and we need more evidence, but in the mean time the bits and bobs we have could guide us. This is why I say "people should wear masks, masks may help, but we need better evidence". All the way through your article there are people saying that the science is not clear. > But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled. [...] > So, scientists have relied on observational and laboratory studies. There is also indirect evidence from other infectious diseases. “If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski. > But such studies do rely on assumptions that mask mandates are being enforced and that people are wearing them correctly. Furthermore, mask use often coincides with other changes, such as limits on gatherings. As restrictions lift, further observational studies might begin to separate the impact of masks from those of other interventions, suggests Grabowski. “It will become easier to see what is doing what,” she says.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

This site is quite honestly the laughing stock of many communities that recognize this when it happens, which is comically often. It's quite embarrassing indeed.

Eldt 6y ago
This community is absolutely riddled with mental disorders

Accacin 6y ago

You're being down-voted but I'm not sure what rules you've broken, so people should not be down-voting you.

the_only_law 6y ago

> Many (not all) HN readers, being software engineers, have a high level of pretentiousness that comes from being good in one field, and then carry over that arrogance into areas where they have no clue. The irony is to watch people get up in arms when an article is posted by some expert in another field who does the same. Its kinda funny thr amount of HN comments I've seen where some user says something along this lines of "author has no idea what they're talking about and should stick to xyz"

dmtroyer 6y ago

your link is busted

ravenstine 6y ago

Most HN comment sections are full of "yes, but..." comments. A post could say "water is wet" and 10 people would pop in to say "yes, but..."

DanBC 6y ago

> Many (not all) HN readers, being software engineers, have a high level of pretentiousness that comes from being good in one field, and then carry over that arrogance into areas where they have no clue. Or maybe they trust scientists who are saying that we don't have good evidence yet? 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. This para says we don't have enough evidence, and what we have isn't particularly good, and we need more evidence, but in the mean time the bits and bobs we have could guide us. This is why I say "people should wear masks, masks may help, but we need better evidence". All the way through your article there are people saying that the science is not clear. > But for the variety of masks in use by the public, the data are messy, disparate and often hastily assembled. [...] > So, scientists have relied on observational and laboratory studies. There is also indirect evidence from other infectious diseases. “If you look at any one paper — it’s not a slam dunk. But, taken all together, I’m convinced that they are working,” says Grabowski. > But such studies do rely on assumptions that mask mandates are being enforced and that people are wearing them correctly. Furthermore, mask use often coincides with other changes, such as limits on gatherings. As restrictions lift, further observational studies might begin to separate the impact of masks from those of other interventions, suggests Grabowski. “It will become easier to see what is doing what,” she says.