3 ms·

alas, evidence to that efficacy of masks is severely lacking tell me, why is that 16 months into this pandemic there are no definitive studies to measure the a

alas, evidence to that efficacy of masks is severely lacking tell me, why is that 16 months into this pandemic there are no definitive studies to measure the actual effect of masks, you know one with a control and masked people? Yet it is the easiest thing to measure ever. We can test an actual life saving vaccine (that also carries huge risks while under development) with 40K volunteers but the mask seems to elude the scrutiny. The CDC should just do the fracking study and put this issue to rest already. Strangely they are not.

incrudible 5y ago
We just assume that masks work and therefore leaving a control group unmasked is unethical. It is the same with the vaccines. The trials have technically not finished yet, but the control groups have long been vaccinated. The real control groups now are the much maligned vaccine hesitant.
C19is20 5y ago
By "fracking", did you mean "fucking", or did I miss something?
n8henrie 5y ago
I made this case a couple of weeks ago, and in response to the conversation I set out to do another literature review (which I hadn't done in about a year, and at that time data were sorely lacking). I was happily surprised to find that several reasonably applicable studies have been published in the meantime, and seem to universally support a statistically significant reduction in infections. If you're basing your statements on literature review from ~9 months ago, I suggest that you look again, the top results on PubMed were extremely easy to find and virtually all had free public access. Of the top of my head, relative risk reduction with vs without masks varied between 30-70% depending on the study, with absolute risk reduction more like 10% (with the absolute risk being fairly low to begin with).
- glofish 5y ago
  I'd be eager to see a proper study (with control groups) and it would go a long way to convince me. All I have seen so far are studies that relate to case numbers going one way or another when a policy was made or not. Simulations, behaviors etc. Sorry that is just not convincing. Case numbers vary a lot with or without measures. In my opinion when you require masks people don't do certain things as often ... does that mean that the mask protected you? You are sending me to search PubMed, instead of linking to a paper that operated with a randomized controlled trial. That is the typical answer one gets when asks for an RCT on masks.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    The question is: are you actually qualified to judge wwhat is a "proper" study? Like, trained in reading biological study literature (it's not straightforward) or able to identify flaws in trial design? I think most people aren't qualified to judge.
    - glofish 5y ago
      I understand the concern and is valid - it is like the No True Scotsman fallacy ... is there a "proper study". yet all I am asking is there an RCT study on masks where they measured actual infection rates on a subpopulation randomly assigned to wear a mask? It is not a particularly unusual design, it is regularly done for vaccines and drugs. Measuring the actual effect on the people that are assigned to each group. I believe that there is no RCT that would indicate that masks work. I have never seen one. As I said I'd be eager to read it if there was a study like that. For example the Cohrane review on masks analyzed many studies, none indicated that masks work: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s... > Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Yet all of a sudden CDC claims masks are super effective.
      - 5y ago

incrudible 5y ago

We just assume that masks work and therefore leaving a control group unmasked is unethical. It is the same with the vaccines. The trials have technically not finished yet, but the control groups have long been vaccinated. The real control groups now are the much maligned vaccine hesitant.

C19is20 5y ago

By "fracking", did you mean "fucking", or did I miss something?

n8henrie 5y ago

I made this case a couple of weeks ago, and in response to the conversation I set out to do another literature review (which I hadn't done in about a year, and at that time data were sorely lacking). I was happily surprised to find that several reasonably applicable studies have been published in the meantime, and seem to universally support a statistically significant reduction in infections. If you're basing your statements on literature review from ~9 months ago, I suggest that you look again, the top results on PubMed were extremely easy to find and virtually all had free public access. Of the top of my head, relative risk reduction with vs without masks varied between 30-70% depending on the study, with absolute risk reduction more like 10% (with the absolute risk being fairly low to begin with).

glofish 5y ago
I'd be eager to see a proper study (with control groups) and it would go a long way to convince me. All I have seen so far are studies that relate to case numbers going one way or another when a policy was made or not. Simulations, behaviors etc. Sorry that is just not convincing. Case numbers vary a lot with or without measures. In my opinion when you require masks people don't do certain things as often ... does that mean that the mask protected you? You are sending me to search PubMed, instead of linking to a paper that operated with a randomized controlled trial. That is the typical answer one gets when asks for an RCT on masks.
- dekhn 5y ago
  The question is: are you actually qualified to judge wwhat is a "proper" study? Like, trained in reading biological study literature (it's not straightforward) or able to identify flaws in trial design? I think most people aren't qualified to judge.
  - glofish 5y ago
    I understand the concern and is valid - it is like the No True Scotsman fallacy ... is there a "proper study". yet all I am asking is there an RCT study on masks where they measured actual infection rates on a subpopulation randomly assigned to wear a mask? It is not a particularly unusual design, it is regularly done for vaccines and drugs. Measuring the actual effect on the people that are assigned to each group. I believe that there is no RCT that would indicate that masks work. I have never seen one. As I said I'd be eager to read it if there was a study like that. For example the Cohrane review on masks analyzed many studies, none indicated that masks work: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s... > Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Yet all of a sudden CDC claims masks are super effective.
    - 5y ago