4 ms·

So am I understanding the study correctly? > Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were a

So am I understanding the study correctly? > Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those living in control villages to develop COVID-19 The surgical masks are 11% more effective in preventing COVID infection than not wearing masks at all?

rafaelero 5y ago
No, you are not interpreting it correctly. The 11% reduction is the effect of the intervention (encouraging people to use masks), which meant that the rate of people complying with the measure went from 12% (control) to 42% (intervention). The 11% refers to the effect of increasing mask use by that magnitude.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  So, having roughly one third of the population wear the mask reduced symptomatic infection of roughly a dozen percent. Can one suppose that an almost fully compliant population would see a reduction of symptomatic infections of roughly one third - or am I missing something? Can this study suggest that a compliant population should see roughly one third less infections? Edit: for example, the study lasted, I understand, only a couple of months: so, will this timeframe be enough to suppose that the exponential effects can be taken into account, and that the reduction in the infections should be more than just tripled, if one supposed almost full compliance?
aw1621107 5y ago
Not quite. The wording has to be parsed carefully: > Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those living in control villages to develop COVID-19 So it's not mask vs. maskless; it's promotion of masks vs. no such promotion. The study [0] gives more information: > In villages that received the intervention, mask use increased by 29 percentage points (from 13 percent in the comparison villages to 42 percent in treatment villages). [0]: https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distribution-and-promotion-mask-uptake-and-covid-19-bangladesh https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distributio...
- starik36 5y ago
  I missed the use of word "promotion". It would be interesting to see the difference in just use of the masks.
  - aw1621107 5y ago
    > It would be interesting to see the difference in just use of the masks. Indeed it would, but I think getting a large-scale trial with a sufficiently high compliance rate would be a challenge, to say the least.
Johnny555 5y ago
That's overall community effectiveness, and with only 50% mask compliance: “It’s notable that even though fewer than 50% of the people in the intervention villages wore masks in public places, we still saw a significant risk reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 in these communities, particularly in elderly, more vulnerable people.” And the protective effect was even more pronounced in the elderly: The protective effect increased to nearly 35% for people over 60 years old.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rafaelero 5y ago

No, you are not interpreting it correctly. The 11% reduction is the effect of the intervention (encouraging people to use masks), which meant that the rate of people complying with the measure went from 12% (control) to 42% (intervention). The 11% refers to the effect of increasing mask use by that magnitude.

mdp2021 5y ago
So, having roughly one third of the population wear the mask reduced symptomatic infection of roughly a dozen percent. Can one suppose that an almost fully compliant population would see a reduction of symptomatic infections of roughly one third - or am I missing something? Can this study suggest that a compliant population should see roughly one third less infections? Edit: for example, the study lasted, I understand, only a couple of months: so, will this timeframe be enough to suppose that the exponential effects can be taken into account, and that the reduction in the infections should be more than just tripled, if one supposed almost full compliance?

aw1621107 5y ago

Not quite. The wording has to be parsed carefully: > Those living in villages randomly assigned to a series of interventions promoting the use of surgical masks were about 11% less likely than those living in control villages to develop COVID-19 So it's not mask vs. maskless; it's promotion of masks vs. no such promotion. The study [0] gives more information: > In villages that received the intervention, mask use increased by 29 percentage points (from 13 percent in the comparison villages to 42 percent in treatment villages). [0]: https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distribution-and-promotion-mask-uptake-and-covid-19-bangladesh https://www.poverty-action.org/study/impact-mask-distributio...

starik36 5y ago
I missed the use of word "promotion". It would be interesting to see the difference in just use of the masks.
- aw1621107 5y ago
  > It would be interesting to see the difference in just use of the masks. Indeed it would, but I think getting a large-scale trial with a sufficiently high compliance rate would be a challenge, to say the least.

Johnny555 5y ago

That's overall community effectiveness, and with only 50% mask compliance: “It’s notable that even though fewer than 50% of the people in the intervention villages wore masks in public places, we still saw a significant risk reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 in these communities, particularly in elderly, more vulnerable people.” And the protective effect was even more pronounced in the elderly: The protective effect increased to nearly 35% for people over 60 years old.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]