6 ms·

the point I was making is that the story, at least in my reading, is being presented primarily as scientific evidence on the effectiveness of masks in school.

the point I was making is that the story, at least in my reading, is being presented primarily as scientific evidence on the effectiveness of masks in school. Especially the WaPo article. If 50% of students in a classroom get infected after 2 days in school while wearing masks then, IMHO, masks can't be all that effective in the first place. the whole article tries to suggest that the infections happened during that period she removed the mask ... there is no evidence for that whatsoever

newbamboo 5y ago
You’re right to question that. From my understanding, she was masked except for the story reading. Teachers need to use facial expression to convey what they’re reading, not just for those with disabilities, hearing problems, etc… but for all children. People who take this as a fable about mask wearing know nothing about pedagogy. It’s a cautionary tale about the need for testing. It also serves to contextualize the precarious trade offs facing our educators and educational system. There are no easy answers; though more testing and vaccinations for the more at risk are obvious takeaways.
warning26 5y ago
> If 50% of students in a classroom get infected after 2 days in school while wearing masks then, IMHO, masks can't be all that effective in the first place. I believe the primary assertion has always been that making protects others more than it protects oneself. So I wouldn't consider this a contradiction of that. That said, it's entirely possible that the 50% of students who didn't get infected were wearing superior masks. Or, perhaps 80% of the students would have been infected if no one had worn masks. In short, you can't really draw a meaningful "see masks don't work" conclusion from this.
dekhn 5y ago
yes, you are correct to note there is a difference between the confidence of the narrative and what science acftually says you can strongly conclude in a situation like this. This is common in journalism and it's our job to call out statements like these when they are not truly supportable by evidence.

newbamboo 5y ago

You’re right to question that. From my understanding, she was masked except for the story reading. Teachers need to use facial expression to convey what they’re reading, not just for those with disabilities, hearing problems, etc… but for all children. People who take this as a fable about mask wearing know nothing about pedagogy. It’s a cautionary tale about the need for testing. It also serves to contextualize the precarious trade offs facing our educators and educational system. There are no easy answers; though more testing and vaccinations for the more at risk are obvious takeaways.

warning26 5y ago

> If 50% of students in a classroom get infected after 2 days in school while wearing masks then, IMHO, masks can't be all that effective in the first place. I believe the primary assertion has always been that making protects others more than it protects oneself. So I wouldn't consider this a contradiction of that. That said, it's entirely possible that the 50% of students who didn't get infected were wearing superior masks. Or, perhaps 80% of the students would have been infected if no one had worn masks. In short, you can't really draw a meaningful "see masks don't work" conclusion from this.

dekhn 5y ago

yes, you are correct to note there is a difference between the confidence of the narrative and what science acftually says you can strongly conclude in a situation like this. This is common in journalism and it's our job to call out statements like these when they are not truly supportable by evidence.