4 ms·

They don't work? This article is claiming otherwise: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

spiderice 5y ago
So what? It's easy to find a million articles that say whatever you need them to say. The point is that Youtube has decided which articles are "right" and "wrong", when they have no business deciding such things.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  My comment has nothing to do with whether Youtube should have the power to do what they've done. It has to do with the assertion in the GP that it's not misinformation to say unequivocally that cloth masks don't work. That appears to be nonsense since there's a handful of studies that at the very least leave open that question. Have a look at Fig 3.A from this study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083
- underseacables 5y ago
  Therefore they should lose sec 230 protections.
  - b0sk 5y ago
    Losing sec 230 protections would mean more ban-hammer for lying politicians (about elections, vaccines etc.)
    - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
      I'm fine with that. It would create an even playing field in theory and that's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now which is some politicans getting to lie with impunity and others having their content removed for wrongthink.
      - bananabreakfast 5y ago
        Hate speech is not "wrongthink". Don't defend racists by pretending they are just thinking outside the box.
        aleister_777 5y ago
        There in-lies the problem. "Hate speech" is just speech you don't like or choose to be offended by. You have no problem with "hate speech" that suits you and your political worldview.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Don't defend the current situation by pretending that it's only hate speech and racism that are getting removed.
contravariant 5y ago
It's quoting a whole lot of things, some of which are in support of cloth masks, but none of which are particularly conclusive. It's worth noting that one of the randomized trials mentioned in that article ended up not being able to prove any significant effect. [1] It apparently had some problems getting published. I've been unable to find the results of the larger trial by Christine Benn et al. [1]: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  It seems conclusive that cloth masks reduce the number of virus particles being inhaled and exhaled, and so theoretically they should work. See Fig 3.A here. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 I understand we also want RCTs to show that they actually reduce infections in practice. But, I will note a few things here. It's almost impossible to study via RCT whether their usage protects other people from infection, which is one of the goals of masks. The best we can do is go with our knowledge that it does block aerosols from being exhaled and use common sense to then assume that this means that it also will protect others from getting infected. Also, it could be the case that while it may not prevent infection, it reduces the severity of the infection due to a much lower viral load being inhaled. This is a difficult question to study. In all, we need to see larger studies done in locations where there's more cases. That one RCT in Denmark isn't enough.
  - goalieca 5y ago
    Vaccines work really well, so well that we can show benefit even when confounded by hundreds of other variables both known and unknown. Obviously the universal mask mandate has not had such a strong success and it becomes really hard/impossible to measure effectiveness in the face of all these other confounding variables. Edit: there is a lot of pseudo-science on all these matters motivated by biases.
screye 5y ago
Does it ? The article seems to be mostly conjecture or studies on properly worn N95 masks (whose efficacy is not in question here). > Osterholm, in Minnesota,director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, wears a mask. Yet he laments the “lack of scientific rigour” that has so far been brought to the topic. “We criticize people all the time in the science world for making statements without any data,” he says. “We’re doing a lot of the same thing here.” This is literally how the article ends. It ends with a general acknowledgement of lack of understanding on the topic. That masks make intuitive sense, but the quality of research wrt. to it is pretty shabby. It doesn't help that the likelihood of getting covid in outdoor settings is significantly lower than those indoors. Unfortunately, the masks almost immediately come off the second we are in this low ventilation + easily aerosolize-able environment. Mandates that are unenforceable under the constitutional structure of your nation are pointless grandstanding. (I generally question the holiness of constitutions too, but that's a whole another discussion) Additionally no one enforces them to be worn correctly and people abandon social distancing the second their wear a mask. So they become generic tools to target and slander people rather than offer any real protection. Reminds me of post-9/11 safety measures that were intrusive enough that they could always find a bullshit reason for stop a brown person at the security checkpoint. It became an excuse for targeting ones you already had in mind, rather than ensure any real security. I would have actually supported mandates for N95 masks and support a requirement for vaccine/anti-body mandate. (As far as we know, getting covid gives a strong enough immunity) Both would be just as draconian as the other recommendations, but, neither are useful tools for polarization, so both sides of the establishment conveniently ignore it.

spiderice 5y ago

So what? It's easy to find a million articles that say whatever you need them to say. The point is that Youtube has decided which articles are "right" and "wrong", when they have no business deciding such things.

fighterpilot 5y ago
My comment has nothing to do with whether Youtube should have the power to do what they've done. It has to do with the assertion in the GP that it's not misinformation to say unequivocally that cloth masks don't work. That appears to be nonsense since there's a handful of studies that at the very least leave open that question. Have a look at Fig 3.A from this study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083
underseacables 5y ago
Therefore they should lose sec 230 protections.
- b0sk 5y ago
  Losing sec 230 protections would mean more ban-hammer for lying politicians (about elections, vaccines etc.)
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    I'm fine with that. It would create an even playing field in theory and that's a hell of a lot better than what we have right now which is some politicans getting to lie with impunity and others having their content removed for wrongthink.
    - bananabreakfast 5y ago
      Hate speech is not "wrongthink". Don't defend racists by pretending they are just thinking outside the box.
      - aleister_777 5y ago
        There in-lies the problem. "Hate speech" is just speech you don't like or choose to be offended by. You have no problem with "hate speech" that suits you and your political worldview.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Don't defend the current situation by pretending that it's only hate speech and racism that are getting removed.

contravariant 5y ago

It's quoting a whole lot of things, some of which are in support of cloth masks, but none of which are particularly conclusive. It's worth noting that one of the randomized trials mentioned in that article ended up not being able to prove any significant effect. [1] It apparently had some problems getting published. I've been unable to find the results of the larger trial by Christine Benn et al. [1]: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

fighterpilot 5y ago
It seems conclusive that cloth masks reduce the number of virus particles being inhaled and exhaled, and so theoretically they should work. See Fig 3.A here. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083 I understand we also want RCTs to show that they actually reduce infections in practice. But, I will note a few things here. It's almost impossible to study via RCT whether their usage protects other people from infection, which is one of the goals of masks. The best we can do is go with our knowledge that it does block aerosols from being exhaled and use common sense to then assume that this means that it also will protect others from getting infected. Also, it could be the case that while it may not prevent infection, it reduces the severity of the infection due to a much lower viral load being inhaled. This is a difficult question to study. In all, we need to see larger studies done in locations where there's more cases. That one RCT in Denmark isn't enough.
- goalieca 5y ago
  Vaccines work really well, so well that we can show benefit even when confounded by hundreds of other variables both known and unknown. Obviously the universal mask mandate has not had such a strong success and it becomes really hard/impossible to measure effectiveness in the face of all these other confounding variables. Edit: there is a lot of pseudo-science on all these matters motivated by biases.

screye 5y ago

Does it ? The article seems to be mostly conjecture or studies on properly worn N95 masks (whose efficacy is not in question here). > Osterholm, in Minnesota,director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, wears a mask. Yet he laments the “lack of scientific rigour” that has so far been brought to the topic. “We criticize people all the time in the science world for making statements without any data,” he says. “We’re doing a lot of the same thing here.” This is literally how the article ends. It ends with a general acknowledgement of lack of understanding on the topic. That masks make intuitive sense, but the quality of research wrt. to it is pretty shabby. It doesn't help that the likelihood of getting covid in outdoor settings is significantly lower than those indoors. Unfortunately, the masks almost immediately come off the second we are in this low ventilation + easily aerosolize-able environment. Mandates that are unenforceable under the constitutional structure of your nation are pointless grandstanding. (I generally question the holiness of constitutions too, but that's a whole another discussion) Additionally no one enforces them to be worn correctly and people abandon social distancing the second their wear a mask. So they become generic tools to target and slander people rather than offer any real protection. Reminds me of post-9/11 safety measures that were intrusive enough that they could always find a bullshit reason for stop a brown person at the security checkpoint. It became an excuse for targeting ones you already had in mind, rather than ensure any real security. I would have actually supported mandates for N95 masks and support a requirement for vaccine/anti-body mandate. (As far as we know, getting covid gives a strong enough immunity) Both would be just as draconian as the other recommendations, but, neither are useful tools for polarization, so both sides of the establishment conveniently ignore it.