4 ms·

Most likely due to people staying at home. I don't believe a mask can in any way protect one from catching a virus [1]. Edit: if you downvote, please, comment

Most likely due to people staying at home. I don't believe a mask can in any way protect one from catching a virus [1]. Edit: if you downvote, please, comment why. I could be wrong, so would love to know your arguments. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

ceejayoz 6y ago
Find a more credible source. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-stanford-masks/fact-check-journal-article-questioning-effectiveness-of-masks-against-covid-19-is-not-a-stanford-university-study-idUSL1N2MJ1UD https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-stanford-masks/fac... The author lied about his affiliation with Stanford, and the paper was retracted. > Jonathan Davis, a spokesperson for Elsevier, told Reuters via email that Medical Hypotheses has since retracted the article after concluding it was misleading due to “a broader review of existing scientific evidence” showing that masks “are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission” and said that the article contained several misquotes and unverified data. Davis said that the author himself had submitted the affiliation with Stanford Medicine. > As reported here by Forbes, Medical Hypotheses has previously published articles such as “Is there an association between the use of heeled footwear and schizophrenia” (here) and “Ejaculation as a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males” (here). There's a reason it's titled "Medical Hypotheses".
- andreygrehov 6y ago
  I didn't know the article was retracted. Are there credible papers confirming that masks do help? Edit: also, quoting Reuters is fine. However, quoting Forbes is not. Forbes is a trash publication, getting published there costs a few hundred bucks.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    The Forbes assertions are trivially confirmed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325026/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325026/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434036/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434036/ Studies demonstrating mask efficacy are just as easily Googleable. You might not want to be throwing around "trash publication" slams here, given your cite.
    - andreygrehov 6y ago
      I'm confused. Those are all different authors. I'm saying "trash publication" because I had experience working with Forbes. Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > I'm confused. Those are all different authors. From the "Medical Hypotheses" journal the Forbes article is criticizing for poor editorial control, and citing those as examples. At least read the claim you're attempting to debunk. > Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks. Apparently that's also true for the "Medical Hypotheses" journal.
        andreygrehov 6y ago
        I read the Reuters fact-check article. In fact, there are no facts. It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true. CDC's current response on masks is positive, however their initial response was negative. Same for WHO. All in all, Reuters rely on a single source – Nature. Nature.com is indeed a legitimate source, however the article is massive, so I can't say for sure if relying on that single source is good enough to make a conclusion. Edit: also, _nobody_ gives a crap about masks in Florida. However, death rates are the same as in California: https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-florida-coronavirus-pandemic-ron-desantis-889df3826d4da96447b329f524c33047 https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-florida-coro...
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true. I'm sorry, you'll base your beliefs on an article in "Medical Hypotheses", but conclude that Reuters is making up an Elsevier spokesperson? I thought "quoting Reuters is fine"; now they're fake news?
gilbetron 6y ago
That source is awful, just an opinion piece, largely. "Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. " It's literally the opposite. Pure garbage, that link. Here's some quality sources: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118?fbclid=IwAR0jN0sXO46tpZbzBJrw0KnHkv61GXNRnD218gO7rYBieqNjEonifdtvI2I https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118?fbclid=IwAR0j... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X20300126 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X2... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173047v3.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173047v...

ceejayoz 6y ago

Find a more credible source. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-stanford-masks/fact-check-journal-article-questioning-effectiveness-of-masks-against-covid-19-is-not-a-stanford-university-study-idUSL1N2MJ1UD https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-stanford-masks/fac... The author lied about his affiliation with Stanford, and the paper was retracted. > Jonathan Davis, a spokesperson for Elsevier, told Reuters via email that Medical Hypotheses has since retracted the article after concluding it was misleading due to “a broader review of existing scientific evidence” showing that masks “are an effective prevention of COVID-19 transmission” and said that the article contained several misquotes and unverified data. Davis said that the author himself had submitted the affiliation with Stanford Medicine. > As reported here by Forbes, Medical Hypotheses has previously published articles such as “Is there an association between the use of heeled footwear and schizophrenia” (here) and “Ejaculation as a potential treatment of nasal congestion in mature males” (here). There's a reason it's titled "Medical Hypotheses".

andreygrehov 6y ago
I didn't know the article was retracted. Are there credible papers confirming that masks do help? Edit: also, quoting Reuters is fine. However, quoting Forbes is not. Forbes is a trash publication, getting published there costs a few hundred bucks.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The Forbes assertions are trivially confirmed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325026/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15325026/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434036/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18434036/ Studies demonstrating mask efficacy are just as easily Googleable. You might not want to be throwing around "trash publication" slams here, given your cite.
  - andreygrehov 6y ago
    I'm confused. Those are all different authors. I'm saying "trash publication" because I had experience working with Forbes. Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > I'm confused. Those are all different authors. From the "Medical Hypotheses" journal the Forbes article is criticizing for poor editorial control, and citing those as examples. At least read the claim you're attempting to debunk. > Once again, one can publish at Forbes whatever the hell they want. It costs a few hundred bucks. Apparently that's also true for the "Medical Hypotheses" journal.
      - andreygrehov 6y ago
        I read the Reuters fact-check article. In fact, there are no facts. It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true. CDC's current response on masks is positive, however their initial response was negative. Same for WHO. All in all, Reuters rely on a single source – Nature. Nature.com is indeed a legitimate source, however the article is massive, so I can't say for sure if relying on that single source is good enough to make a conclusion. Edit: also, _nobody_ gives a crap about masks in Florida. However, death rates are the same as in California: https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-florida-coronavirus-pandemic-ron-desantis-889df3826d4da96447b329f524c33047 https://apnews.com/article/public-health-health-florida-coro...
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        > It says that the publication has been retracted, but from what I can see, that's not true. I'm sorry, you'll base your beliefs on an article in "Medical Hypotheses", but conclude that Reuters is making up an Elsevier spokesperson? I thought "quoting Reuters is fine"; now they're fake news?

gilbetron 6y ago

That source is awful, just an opinion piece, largely. "Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. " It's literally the opposite. Pure garbage, that link. Here's some quality sources: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118?fbclid=IwAR0jN0sXO46tpZbzBJrw0KnHkv61GXNRnD218gO7rYBieqNjEonifdtvI2I https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118?fbclid=IwAR0j... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X20300126 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X2... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173047v3.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.12.20173047v...