4 ms·

> This claim is patently false. [...] real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due "Patently false" is vastly different to "unsubstantiated."

> This claim is patently false. [...] real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due "Patently false" is vastly different to "unsubstantiated." In addition, here is an entire page of studies substantiating mask efficacy: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

prohobo 5y ago
The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. No one is doubting mask efficacy, just their degree of efficacy. All of the studies shown do not justify mandating the use of cloth or disposable masks outdoors, or even indoors. They all show that people should be wearing M95s or better if they want substantive protection. What you're suggesting is akin to wearing gloves in public - which while probably somewhat safer, is not really a key driver of stopping spread. What's worrying is that not only are your arguments heavily flawed, but we can extrapolate 99% of your political views just by looking at one of your scientific takes. For anyone wondering, no I'm not a Republican.
- rualca 5y ago
  > The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and one which flies in the face of reason and reality. It's widely known that basic and low-effort protective measures such as social distancing, washing hands and wearing facial masks, are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19 and other airborne respiratory diseases. The point was never that these basic, low-effort measures are not full-proof. The whole point is that they are effective, they are demonstrably effective, and they require little to no effort to implement. For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - prohobo 5y ago
    It's safe outdoors, masks or not. You can wear a mask if you want to, but it won't make a difference.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind. I don't know about other "anti-maskers," but for me, it's about the precautionary principle [1]. If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits, and before we decide, collectively, to change our habits, maybe we should think hard about those downsides. Yes, there are downsides to masks: reduced oxygen, keeping captured bacteria close to your face for long periods, etc., made worse by the fact that people, by and large, do not rotate or clean their masks properly. In other words, experiments in a lab that study the effectiveness of masks when used properly do not match the reality of how people actually use masks. In other words, in science, all factors matter. [2] And pretending otherwise is disingenuous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matter/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
    - rualca 5y ago
      > If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits Pray tell, what are those collosal downsides that render such an effortless thing like wearing a mask in public such a prohibitively costly endeavor?
      - ghoward 5y ago
        We don't know. That's why the Precautionary Principle is so important. It is built on the assumption of "We don't know, and we don't know what we don't know, so we had better be cautious."
- zamalek 5y ago
  > political views What the hell has that got to do with anything?

prohobo 5y ago

The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. No one is doubting mask efficacy, just their degree of efficacy. All of the studies shown do not justify mandating the use of cloth or disposable masks outdoors, or even indoors. They all show that people should be wearing M95s or better if they want substantive protection. What you're suggesting is akin to wearing gloves in public - which while probably somewhat safer, is not really a key driver of stopping spread. What's worrying is that not only are your arguments heavily flawed, but we can extrapolate 99% of your political views just by looking at one of your scientific takes. For anyone wondering, no I'm not a Republican.

rualca 5y ago
> The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and one which flies in the face of reason and reality. It's widely known that basic and low-effort protective measures such as social distancing, washing hands and wearing facial masks, are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19 and other airborne respiratory diseases. The point was never that these basic, low-effort measures are not full-proof. The whole point is that they are effective, they are demonstrably effective, and they require little to no effort to implement. For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- prohobo 5y ago
  It's safe outdoors, masks or not. You can wear a mask if you want to, but it won't make a difference.
- ghoward 5y ago
  > For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind. I don't know about other "anti-maskers," but for me, it's about the precautionary principle [1]. If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits, and before we decide, collectively, to change our habits, maybe we should think hard about those downsides. Yes, there are downsides to masks: reduced oxygen, keeping captured bacteria close to your face for long periods, etc., made worse by the fact that people, by and large, do not rotate or clean their masks properly. In other words, experiments in a lab that study the effectiveness of masks when used properly do not match the reality of how people actually use masks. In other words, in science, all factors matter. [2] And pretending otherwise is disingenuous. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matter/ https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
  - rualca 5y ago
    > If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits Pray tell, what are those collosal downsides that render such an effortless thing like wearing a mask in public such a prohibitively costly endeavor?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      We don't know. That's why the Precautionary Principle is so important. It is built on the assumption of "We don't know, and we don't know what we don't know, so we had better be cautious."
zamalek 5y ago
> political views What the hell has that got to do with anything?