5 ms·

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 numb

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.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Let me put my question another way. From what you're writing (I read multiple comments of yours in this post) it doesn't look like you're qualified to judge a paper on its merits. So I have to ask why you're asking for "a proper study", if you're not qualified to judge the study?
    - glofish 5y ago
      I am qualified to judge a scientific paper, but I don't think this should be a personal judgement call of who the "better expert" is. I am trying to avoid calling to authority when deciding an objective truth. On this topic a reasonably intelligent person reading a reasonably well written scientific paper can understand its strengths and weaknesses. It is not that complicated, we would be talking about simple counts: X people were enrolled, Y people got infected with masks Z people infected without masks. Yes there is statistics involved, there are corrections to be made, proper tests to be chosen, but at end we are talking about a few integer numbers and their relationships. We are not discussing the unsolved mysteries of quantum chromodynamics. If you look at the information for multiple vaccine papers the data is detailed, granular, compelling and evident - even though I could not design or perform the same analysis myself. There is no debate there that it works. Yet there is no similarity in the data robustness or even availability when it comes to effectiveness of masks. I believe that there are no RCT studies on masks that would support their benefits. The Cohran review that I linked on the state of the field also comes to the same conclusion.

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.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Let me put my question another way. From what you're writing (I read multiple comments of yours in this post) it doesn't look like you're qualified to judge a paper on its merits. So I have to ask why you're asking for "a proper study", if you're not qualified to judge the study?
  - glofish 5y ago
    I am qualified to judge a scientific paper, but I don't think this should be a personal judgement call of who the "better expert" is. I am trying to avoid calling to authority when deciding an objective truth. On this topic a reasonably intelligent person reading a reasonably well written scientific paper can understand its strengths and weaknesses. It is not that complicated, we would be talking about simple counts: X people were enrolled, Y people got infected with masks Z people infected without masks. Yes there is statistics involved, there are corrections to be made, proper tests to be chosen, but at end we are talking about a few integer numbers and their relationships. We are not discussing the unsolved mysteries of quantum chromodynamics. If you look at the information for multiple vaccine papers the data is detailed, granular, compelling and evident - even though I could not design or perform the same analysis myself. There is no debate there that it works. Yet there is no similarity in the data robustness or even availability when it comes to effectiveness of masks. I believe that there are no RCT studies on masks that would support their benefits. The Cohran review that I linked on the state of the field also comes to the same conclusion.