6 ms·

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 historia

by 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/

by Gupie 6y ago

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/