5 ms·

"A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffective

"A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffectiveness was that masks were worn outdoors and not inside in gatherings when conditions for transmission would be greatest." Why is it so hard for public officials to learn from past experiences, and always repeat the same mistakes?

chris123 6y ago
Orange man bad.
morceauxdebois 6y ago
Because politicians are not at the liberty to adapt their opinions like scientists.
hprotagonist 6y ago
Ah yes the famous 1900 electret fabric factory industry boom!
Gupie 6y ago
Are you saying that masks wearing is of no use? The paragraph in the article immediately after the one you quote says: "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies."
- Radim 6y ago
  One reference is not like the other. Take your pick: > "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." From a social science piece published in May 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931207-1 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820.... The full quote is "Yet in cities like San Francisco, the decline in deaths from influenza was partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." It contains no further attribution or references. > "A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffectiveness was that masks were worn outdoors and not inside in gatherings when conditions for transmission would be greatest. It also noted that most masks were improperly constructed of inadequate materials." Comes from an actual medical study by the California Board of Health, published in 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=3 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&vi...
  - Gupie 6y ago
    One is a recent quote from the Lancet, a respected medical journal. The other is from 1919, before the discovery of viruses. But I am not going to argue which holds the most credence. What is concerning though is that the original comment selectly quoted the paragraph that supported their no doubt political opinion while ignoring the other.
  - op00to 6y ago
    Would you agree to getting medical care only supported by what was learned and published by 1919?
- dilap 6y ago
  Doesn't seem useful to the wearer: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 Perhaps useful to other people, but that's just speculation.
  - hprotagonist 6y ago
    actually read that study please. “47% of the group we asked to consider wearing masks wore them sometimes, and the whole group got a little bit less sick” is a crap study. which is what you’d expect with patient reported data.
    - dilap 6y ago
      How is it a crap study? They had a bunch of people wear masks, which they did with varying levels of compliance ("46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended"), and found no statistically significant reduction in infection rates. To me that seems like a pretty convincing reason to believe that wearing a mask is not going to decrease my chances of getting COVID. Do you have a compelling reason to believe otherwise?
      - hprotagonist 6y ago
        some thoughts: - if you run a study about the effectiveness of mitigation methods when there's a low incidence rate during your study duration, don't be surprised when you're sampling noise and get inconclusive answers. - a sub-50% self reporting compliance rate is pretty shit. - https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/public_files/Vanderbilt%20COVID19%20Report-Oct%2027.pdf https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/publi... Figure 1. - that masks are better at keeping your gross breath in than it is in keeping everyone else's out is not a very contentious claim, and it's upheld here. Asymptomatic transmission being what it is (ie, real), you would expect to see high compliance with masks and social distancing correlate well with reduction in overall caseload. That hypothesis was not investigated here, so this study contributes no information to it. - the authors of the paper themselves conclude “We think you should wear a face mask at least to protect yourself, but you should also use it to protect others ... We consider that the conclusion is we should wear face masks.” - if you want to see population statistics where community transmission is frankly rampant: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/
LatteLazy 6y ago
Not sure what you're referring to but... Here (London UK) masks are mandated indoors and not outdoors.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pmoriarty 6y ago
"A study then in 1919" That alone is almost enough to discount it right there. Even studies done only 50 years ago are often discounted by scientists today because of their poor quality and lack of rigor compared to today's studies. A study done 100 years ago is likely to be even worse. But even were it not, we have to ask: - What study? - Was it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? - How large was the study? - Was it double-blind? - Were the results statistically significant? When even very recent studies are mentioned on HN, they're often torn apart for not having met one or more of these and other criteria. Yet at other times mere mention of "a study", some anonymous study done 100 years ago, published who knows where, of completely unknown quality is supposed to be given credence just because it's "a study"?
thecupisblue 6y ago
You are looking at it too shallowly, you need to observe multiple dimensions. As someone mentioned, quality of the study in 1919 is quite questionable. But in 1919, population density was way different. Average home was about 5 people, now its about 2.5. US has about 8 times more households than back then. Back then, there were 9 areas that had population between 500k-1 million. Now, theres about 40 in that category and about 40 in above 1 million category. Why take a look at this data? Because it shows you what happened - less people inside, more people outside. There are more external centres of congregation than we had before - more malls with more people, more bars, more shops. The chances are you will encounter 5-10 times more people than back then on your way to the store, and thats a low guesstimate. Edit: My point is, masks outside are now way more necessary than in 1919 when in mid-high populated areas.
- tartoran 6y ago
  Sure but what harm can masks do? Why are people so vehemently refusing to wear them? I don’t get it really
  - rascul 6y ago
    Some of the complaints I hear are difficulty breathing, and fogging up glasses. Seems to me that in such cases a different mask design might suffice. Some also believe that the masks aren't useful, so don't bother.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      I suffer from both problems (fogging up glasses and difficult to breath) but I still prefer to wear a mask. It just means I go less to places where its mandatory to wear one. Which means I go out less, which is statistically good to combat the pandemic. My mother does the very same, except she's a risk group while I'm not. As does my partner. n=3 but I doubt we're alone. Even in a seemingly unlikely way such as this indirect example, masks work.
jariel 6y ago
? Why would you imply they haven't? Our mandates are focused on indoor gatherings, and we have access to high quality masks.

chris123 6y ago

Orange man bad.

morceauxdebois 6y ago

Because politicians are not at the liberty to adapt their opinions like scientists.

hprotagonist 6y ago

Ah yes the famous 1900 electret fabric factory industry boom!

Gupie 6y ago

Are you saying that masks wearing is of no use? The paragraph in the article immediately after the one you quote says: "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies."

Radim 6y ago
One reference is not like the other. Take your pick: > "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." From a social science piece published in May 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931207-1 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820.... The full quote is "Yet in cities like San Francisco, the decline in deaths from influenza was partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." It contains no further attribution or references. > "A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffectiveness was that masks were worn outdoors and not inside in gatherings when conditions for transmission would be greatest. It also noted that most masks were improperly constructed of inadequate materials." Comes from an actual medical study by the California Board of Health, published in 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=3 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&vi...
- Gupie 6y ago
  One is a recent quote from the Lancet, a respected medical journal. The other is from 1919, before the discovery of viruses. But I am not going to argue which holds the most credence. What is concerning though is that the original comment selectly quoted the paragraph that supported their no doubt political opinion while ignoring the other.
- op00to 6y ago
  Would you agree to getting medical care only supported by what was learned and published by 1919?
dilap 6y ago
Doesn't seem useful to the wearer: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 Perhaps useful to other people, but that's just speculation.
- hprotagonist 6y ago
  actually read that study please. “47% of the group we asked to consider wearing masks wore them sometimes, and the whole group got a little bit less sick” is a crap study. which is what you’d expect with patient reported data.
  - dilap 6y ago
    How is it a crap study? They had a bunch of people wear masks, which they did with varying levels of compliance ("46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended"), and found no statistically significant reduction in infection rates. To me that seems like a pretty convincing reason to believe that wearing a mask is not going to decrease my chances of getting COVID. Do you have a compelling reason to believe otherwise?
    - hprotagonist 6y ago
      some thoughts: - if you run a study about the effectiveness of mitigation methods when there's a low incidence rate during your study duration, don't be surprised when you're sampling noise and get inconclusive answers. - a sub-50% self reporting compliance rate is pretty shit. - https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/public_files/Vanderbilt%20COVID19%20Report-Oct%2027.pdf https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/publi... Figure 1. - that masks are better at keeping your gross breath in than it is in keeping everyone else's out is not a very contentious claim, and it's upheld here. Asymptomatic transmission being what it is (ie, real), you would expect to see high compliance with masks and social distancing correlate well with reduction in overall caseload. That hypothesis was not investigated here, so this study contributes no information to it. - the authors of the paper themselves conclude “We think you should wear a face mask at least to protect yourself, but you should also use it to protect others ... We consider that the conclusion is we should wear face masks.” - if you want to see population statistics where community transmission is frankly rampant: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6947e2-H.pdf , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32543923/

LatteLazy 6y ago

Not sure what you're referring to but... Here (London UK) masks are mandated indoors and not outdoors.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pmoriarty 6y ago

"A study then in 1919" That alone is almost enough to discount it right there. Even studies done only 50 years ago are often discounted by scientists today because of their poor quality and lack of rigor compared to today's studies. A study done 100 years ago is likely to be even worse. But even were it not, we have to ask: - What study? - Was it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal? - How large was the study? - Was it double-blind? - Were the results statistically significant? When even very recent studies are mentioned on HN, they're often torn apart for not having met one or more of these and other criteria. Yet at other times mere mention of "a study", some anonymous study done 100 years ago, published who knows where, of completely unknown quality is supposed to be given credence just because it's "a study"?

thecupisblue 6y ago

You are looking at it too shallowly, you need to observe multiple dimensions. As someone mentioned, quality of the study in 1919 is quite questionable. But in 1919, population density was way different. Average home was about 5 people, now its about 2.5. US has about 8 times more households than back then. Back then, there were 9 areas that had population between 500k-1 million. Now, theres about 40 in that category and about 40 in above 1 million category. Why take a look at this data? Because it shows you what happened - less people inside, more people outside. There are more external centres of congregation than we had before - more malls with more people, more bars, more shops. The chances are you will encounter 5-10 times more people than back then on your way to the store, and thats a low guesstimate. Edit: My point is, masks outside are now way more necessary than in 1919 when in mid-high populated areas.

tartoran 6y ago
Sure but what harm can masks do? Why are people so vehemently refusing to wear them? I don’t get it really
- rascul 6y ago
  Some of the complaints I hear are difficulty breathing, and fogging up glasses. Seems to me that in such cases a different mask design might suffice. Some also believe that the masks aren't useful, so don't bother.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    I suffer from both problems (fogging up glasses and difficult to breath) but I still prefer to wear a mask. It just means I go less to places where its mandatory to wear one. Which means I go out less, which is statistically good to combat the pandemic. My mother does the very same, except she's a risk group while I'm not. As does my partner. n=3 but I doubt we're alone. Even in a seemingly unlikely way such as this indirect example, masks work.

jariel 6y ago

? Why would you imply they haven't? Our mandates are focused on indoor gatherings, and we have access to high quality masks.