7 ms·

Do you have sources for your claims? I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showe

by cactus2093 6y ago

Do you have sources for your claims? I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.html https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm... In the absence of more specific information about SARS-COV-2 early in the pandemic, surely it would have made sense to default to using the preventative measures that were known to be effective at controlling SARS and other known respiratory diseases? Especially when these measures come with no real risks. It's true that they didn't know with 100% certainty, and China's misinformation about human to human spread in the beginning and not allowing the CDC team in early to investigate certainly didn't help either. Maybe these experts, including Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO, just made what turned out to be very bad judgement calls and they honestly thought that masks wouldn't prevent the spread of the disease. But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, and I still find that to be absolutely unconscionable.

mcguire 6y ago
Here's my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-019-3707-y https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... [2019] "In summary, despite the various mechanistic arguments about which organisms can be potentially airborne and therefore aerosol-transmissible, ultimately, the main deciding factor appears to be how many studies using various differing approaches: empirical (clinical, epidemiological), and/or experimental (e.g. using animal models), and/or mechanistic (using airflow tracers and air-sampling) methods, reach the same consensus opinion. Over time, the scientific community will eventually form an impression of the predominant transmission route for that specific agent, even if the conclusion is one of mixed transmission routes, with different routes predominating depending on the specific situations. This is the case for influenza viruses, and is likely the most realistic."
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  How does this address the assertion that there's already been research out of Asia that says masks are effective against these kind of viruses?
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Honestly, I'm not sure what you're asking. Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" Evidence that the US health experts knew of the research but are Snidely Whiplash-ish, mustache-twirling evil? As far as I can tell, they're just as confused as any other scientist trying to do their best, with the additional constraint that they have to provide an answer to a question and that any nuance in that answer will be ignored anyway. The link I posted is to a 2019 paper discussing how and why some viruses are considered airborne transmissible such that masks would help. (Single papers don't usually settle complex questions, right?) cactus2093's links are to a paper discussing the difficulty of getting people to use masks correctly and a science popularization article describing an unnamed study from the University of New South Wales and an unidentified CDC study. The first link does include references about the utility of masks, to articles titled "Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model", "Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians", "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review", "Professional and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population", and "A schlieren optical study of the human cough with and without wearing masks for aerosol infection control", but those don't seem to imply the issue is settled. The second link does go on to say, "While some governments are already stockpiling masks for use in emergencies, MacIntyre said these guidelines had been implemented without evidence to support them. "We now have provided that evidence," she said," but it's difficult to evaluate the last sentence.
    - thereare5lights 6y ago
      You said > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. cactus2093 replied > I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm... There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. 1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. 2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. So the question remains, are you wrong about your assertion that > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. and if not, what are we missing about what you're trying to say? > Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" There was certainly the perception that Asians wearing masks was ridiculous. Whether or not this perception extended to American experts and influenced their conclusions is unknown to me.
grahamburger 6y ago
> But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." If they said "go buy masks," that would mean leaving your house to get a mask, which would directly contradict the more important advice of staying home. Also if they said wear a mask when you leave the house it would have been interpreted as "it's ok to go on with normal events as long as we have masks" which wasn't the message they were trying to send, either. The message was stay home, and at the time it was probably the right message, and not a lie.
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  I definitely remember a lot of talk from experts saying non-surgical masks don't work and that surgical masks should be saved for medical professionals.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." There was “stay home” but also “stop buying masks because you are stopping medical, first responder, etc. personnel from getting them and they aren't useful for the general public” during the initial PPE supply shortage and hoarding. This wasn't a lie, AFAICT, but Aa statement that was completely correct public health statement in the context it was given that was widely interpreted as an individual health statement.
  - cactus2093 6y ago
    > was completely correct public health statement in the context it was given that was widely interpreted as an individual health statement. There was no misunderstanding, the message was "don't wear a mask unless you're sick, masks don't help the wearer they only help keep a sick person from spreading it to others around them". That was just a lie at the time, we didn't know that for sure and we had every reason to suspect the opposite.
    - 6y ago

mcguire 6y ago

Here's my previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25738200 https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-019-3707-y https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128... [2019] "In summary, despite the various mechanistic arguments about which organisms can be potentially airborne and therefore aerosol-transmissible, ultimately, the main deciding factor appears to be how many studies using various differing approaches: empirical (clinical, epidemiological), and/or experimental (e.g. using animal models), and/or mechanistic (using airflow tracers and air-sampling) methods, reach the same consensus opinion. Over time, the scientific community will eventually form an impression of the predominant transmission route for that specific agent, even if the conclusion is one of mixed transmission routes, with different routes predominating depending on the specific situations. This is the case for influenza viruses, and is likely the most realistic."

thereare5lights 6y ago
How does this address the assertion that there's already been research out of Asia that says masks are effective against these kind of viruses?
- mcguire 6y ago
  Honestly, I'm not sure what you're asking. Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" Evidence that the US health experts knew of the research but are Snidely Whiplash-ish, mustache-twirling evil? As far as I can tell, they're just as confused as any other scientist trying to do their best, with the additional constraint that they have to provide an answer to a question and that any nuance in that answer will be ignored anyway. The link I posted is to a 2019 paper discussing how and why some viruses are considered airborne transmissible such that masks would help. (Single papers don't usually settle complex questions, right?) cactus2093's links are to a paper discussing the difficulty of getting people to use masks correctly and a science popularization article describing an unnamed study from the University of New South Wales and an unidentified CDC study. The first link does include references about the utility of masks, to articles titled "Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model", "Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians", "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review", "Professional and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population", and "A schlieren optical study of the human cough with and without wearing masks for aerosol infection control", but those don't seem to imply the issue is settled. The second link does go on to say, "While some governments are already stockpiling masks for use in emergencies, MacIntyre said these guidelines had been implemented without evidence to support them. "We now have provided that evidence," she said," but it's difficult to evaluate the last sentence.
  - thereare5lights 6y ago
    You said > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. cactus2093 replied > I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm... There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. 1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. 2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. So the question remains, are you wrong about your assertion that > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. and if not, what are we missing about what you're trying to say? > Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" There was certainly the perception that Asians wearing masks was ridiculous. Whether or not this perception extended to American experts and influenced their conclusions is unknown to me.

grahamburger 6y ago

> But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." If they said "go buy masks," that would mean leaving your house to get a mask, which would directly contradict the more important advice of staying home. Also if they said wear a mask when you leave the house it would have been interpreted as "it's ok to go on with normal events as long as we have masks" which wasn't the message they were trying to send, either. The message was stay home, and at the time it was probably the right message, and not a lie.

thereare5lights 6y ago
I definitely remember a lot of talk from experts saying non-surgical masks don't work and that surgical masks should be saved for medical professionals.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> As I remember it, the advice wasn't "don't wear masks," the advice was "stay home." There was “stay home” but also “stop buying masks because you are stopping medical, first responder, etc. personnel from getting them and they aren't useful for the general public” during the initial PPE supply shortage and hoarding. This wasn't a lie, AFAICT, but Aa statement that was completely correct public health statement in the context it was given that was widely interpreted as an individual health statement.
- cactus2093 6y ago
  > was completely correct public health statement in the context it was given that was widely interpreted as an individual health statement. There was no misunderstanding, the message was "don't wear a mask unless you're sick, masks don't help the wearer they only help keep a sick person from spreading it to others around them". That was just a lie at the time, we didn't know that for sure and we had every reason to suspect the opposite.
  - 6y ago