5 ms·
This is disingenuous. The study you cite has a large effect size with low certainty ("Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection"). Be
by woofie11 5y ago
This is disingenuous. The study you cite has a large effect size with low certainty ("Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection"). Best available data was that they probably help a lot, but we don't know yet, based on data from COVID19.
At the time COVID19 broke out, we had a ton of data from flu viruses and masks. That data clearly showed masks reduced viral loads a lot.
Was it perfect data? No data is perfect, especially 3 months into a new infection. But when the anti-mask recommendations came out, they were lying.
- DanBC 5y agoWe did have a ton of data from flu viruses and masks, and those studies struggled to show any benefit to mask wearing. You only see clear benefits when you reduce the quality of the research. > But when the anti-mask recommendations came out, they were lying. You keep saying this, but you've never posted the link to the meta analysis or RCTs that you think they should have been using to form their opinion.
- woofie11 5y agoPlease show any study which "struggled to show any benefit." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153448/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699551/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4699551/ Etc. Studies range in effect sizes, but all the ones I read in March 2020 showed significant reductions in flu infection rates with masks. There were nice studies on cloth versus surgical versus N95 at the time too (summary: surgical and N95 were similar in performance, and much better than cloth, when used without full hazmat). We know a lot more, specific to COVID, today. But that was best available evidence in March.