2 ms·

On the efficacy of surgical (i.e. non-N95/KN95) masks a Danish randomised control study covering 6000 participants, half of whom got 50 disposable surgical mask

On the efficacy of surgical (i.e. non-N95/KN95) masks a Danish randomised control study covering 6000 participants, half of whom got 50 disposable surgical masks each and were told to change them after 8 hours of use did not show a significant difference in infection rate (between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38), 95% CIs compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection). There is a long discussion on CIDRAP [2] triggered by Michael Osterholm's statements on the gap between the perceived and actual efficacy and the downsides of an over-reliance on their protective effect. On the efficacy of vaccination as a means to slow the infection rate there are several sources, once of which [3] was discussed on this site [4] recently. With regard to the "delta"/"Indian" variant the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection [5]. Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. When it comes to freedom of speech it is exactly the type of speech which goes against the common narrative (while staying within the bounds of legality) which should be protected [6]. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 [2] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commentary-my-views-cloth-face-coverings-public-preventing-covid-19 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/07/commenta... [3] https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta https://www.science.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vac... [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28395776 [5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v... [6] ...which does not mean you need to agree, not even that you need to listen.

Nursie 5y ago
Interesting on the masks, the research I had seen on different materials showed that while some materials (fleece) could actually increase spread of exhaled droplets, others could decrease the spread. Particularly three-layers of cloth, one of cotton and two of either silk of chiffon, could create both a physical and electrostatic barrier and be on a par with N95 masks. It does look like mask are over-relied upon, yes, and they do seem to get clung to like some sort of talisman by various governments. That said, it also looks like your research really just rules out the medical style masks from having much effect, which is hardly surprising having worn them - they don't give much of a seal or seem to filter much. > the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection So while the vaccines may not cut transmission among people who get infected while vaccinated, they still massively cut the spread by cutting down on the number of those infections that happen in the first place, even with the delta variant. So vaccination is still a public health measure and not merely a personal choice. > Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? The same damned approach you espouse when you say things like - "do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it" ? Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, because muh freedom of speech. Free speech and freedom to dissent doesn't mean that dissent on covid vaccination is a virtue. It means that that speech doesn't get punished. You can be on the right side of the law and still be doing the absolute wrong thing. Dissent for its own sake is childish, especially where it causes harm, not something to praise. Which is what I was replying to - the assertion that dissent is a virtue. Not in all circumstances it isn't. Not purely as a kneejerk.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  > My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? Yes... > Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, ...but the government is not your mum. Also... > because muh freedom of speech. ...most of the dissent I see does not come from people who speak like that - this is not a dispute between "uneducated rubes" and "enlightened followers of The Science™", nor is it clear which of the positions leads to the best overall results. From what I gather comparing the outcomes in places with severe restrictions - The UK, New Jersey, New York and California come to mind - with those where the approach is more based on personal responsibility - Sweden and Florida are two examples - there is no clear "winner" [1,2]: the UK has a higher death rate than Sweden, New Jersey has the highest death rate in the USA, Florida and California are comparable while Florida has a much older population and as such would be expected to rank higher. The core of the dispute is whether people can be trusted to look after themselves or whether they need some authority figure to tell them how to behave. Given access to means of protection - vaccines, behavioural changes, PPE - the results seem to show that there is no significant difference in disease-related outcomes between the former and the latter while the former retain a larger amount of freedom compared to the latter. As to whether this larger sense of freedom translates in a higher trust in authorities is unclear, at least here in Sweden where the rather soft-handed approach is often portrayed as being due to incompetence and lack of direction. Something which is clear is that places which are or have been under severe lockdown will suffer in other ways with children who have not seen their friends for months, small businesses which have been forced into bankruptcy while behemoths like Amazon thrive, social cohesion taking a hit due to the fact that people are starting to see others as sources of infection first, people second, substance abuse increasing, lack of exercise due to restrictions leading to worse health which directly increases the severity of any SARS2-infection, etcetera - the list is far longer than can be discussed here. Suffice to say that - when regarding liberal western societies - I see the authoritarian approach as the wrong approach which will end up doing more damage to society while not significantly reducing the impact of SARS2. [1] https://c19.se/global https://c19.se/global - sort the table on deaths per million [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...

Nursie 5y ago

Interesting on the masks, the research I had seen on different materials showed that while some materials (fleece) could actually increase spread of exhaled droplets, others could decrease the spread. Particularly three-layers of cloth, one of cotton and two of either silk of chiffon, could create both a physical and electrostatic barrier and be on a par with N95 masks. It does look like mask are over-relied upon, yes, and they do seem to get clung to like some sort of talisman by various governments. That said, it also looks like your research really just rules out the medical style masks from having much effect, which is hardly surprising having worn them - they don't give much of a seal or seem to filter much. > the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine offers 43% protection against infection while the Moderna "Spikevax" mRNA vaccine offers 76% protection So while the vaccines may not cut transmission among people who get infected while vaccinated, they still massively cut the spread by cutting down on the number of those infections that happen in the first place, even with the delta variant. So vaccination is still a public health measure and not merely a personal choice. > Maybe I am wrong about your willingness to give up freedom, this is the impression I get from your approach to those who dare to dissent. My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? The same damned approach you espouse when you say things like - "do not force yourself upon others who have not made clear to be OK with it" ? Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, because muh freedom of speech. Free speech and freedom to dissent doesn't mean that dissent on covid vaccination is a virtue. It means that that speech doesn't get punished. You can be on the right side of the law and still be doing the absolute wrong thing. Dissent for its own sake is childish, especially where it causes harm, not something to praise. Which is what I was replying to - the assertion that dissent is a virtue. Not in all circumstances it isn't. Not purely as a kneejerk.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
the_third_wave 5y ago
> My approach that I explicitly said was great we have the right to dissent, but should choose where when to use it? Yes... > Yes, free speech should be protected, that doesn't mean I can call my mum a the C word and be free from her being offended, ...but the government is not your mum. Also... > because muh freedom of speech. ...most of the dissent I see does not come from people who speak like that - this is not a dispute between "uneducated rubes" and "enlightened followers of The Science™", nor is it clear which of the positions leads to the best overall results. From what I gather comparing the outcomes in places with severe restrictions - The UK, New Jersey, New York and California come to mind - with those where the approach is more based on personal responsibility - Sweden and Florida are two examples - there is no clear "winner" [1,2]: the UK has a higher death rate than Sweden, New Jersey has the highest death rate in the USA, Florida and California are comparable while Florida has a much older population and as such would be expected to rank higher. The core of the dispute is whether people can be trusted to look after themselves or whether they need some authority figure to tell them how to behave. Given access to means of protection - vaccines, behavioural changes, PPE - the results seem to show that there is no significant difference in disease-related outcomes between the former and the latter while the former retain a larger amount of freedom compared to the latter. As to whether this larger sense of freedom translates in a higher trust in authorities is unclear, at least here in Sweden where the rather soft-handed approach is often portrayed as being due to incompetence and lack of direction. Something which is clear is that places which are or have been under severe lockdown will suffer in other ways with children who have not seen their friends for months, small businesses which have been forced into bankruptcy while behemoths like Amazon thrive, social cohesion taking a hit due to the fact that people are starting to see others as sources of infection first, people second, substance abuse increasing, lack of exercise due to restrictions leading to worse health which directly increases the severity of any SARS2-infection, etcetera - the list is far longer than can be discussed here. Suffice to say that - when regarding liberal western societies - I see the authoritarian approach as the wrong approach which will end up doing more damage to society while not significantly reducing the impact of SARS2. [1] https://c19.se/global https://c19.se/global - sort the table on deaths per million [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...