3 ms·

They did all of those things, but this paper is about the effect of mask-wearing (surgical vs. cloth vs. none) on the rate of symptomatic seroprevalence in the

by timr 5y ago

They did all of those things, but this paper is about the effect of mask-wearing (surgical vs. cloth vs. none) on the rate of symptomatic seroprevalence in the groups. Kuldorff is right, and is just stating the top-line numbers from the paper.

slg 5y ago
>Free mask distribution and promotion reduced the proportion of people who reported COVID-like symptoms on average by 11 percent, which was driven mainly by the effects of surgical masks. Villages where cloth masks were distributed experienced a 5 percent reduction in symptoms, while villages where surgical masks were distributed saw a reduction of 12 percent. About a third (40 percent) of those who reported COVID-19 symptoms agreed to have their blood tested for SARS-CoV-2. On average, researchers found a decrease of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections of 9 percent. This reduction was higher in villages that wore a surgical mask (11 percent) and in these, among individuals aged 60+ (35 percent). It is measuring the effectiveness of the public policy and comparing how it differs when the masks distributed were cloth versus surgical. There is nothing in this report about the effectiveness of masks on an individual level.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  "This report" does gloss over much of the results from the actual study. Here's the link to the paper: https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...
- worker767424 5y ago
  And at 9%, some of that is likely seeing trusted public figures essentially saying "it's not safe out there" by talking about masks, and people restricting their actions accordingly. It's really hard to actually test this.
- timr 5y ago
  > There is nothing in this report about the effectiveness of masks on an individual level. The DANMASK RCT [1] provided a direct test of masks as personal protective equipment, and found no support for masks. The criticism of that study, at that time, was that it didn't test the hypothesis of protecting others. So here we have an RCT that tests that hypothesis, and now that's not good enough, because the results aren't "at an individual level"? Boy, the ground sure is slippery around here! [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

by timr 5y ago

slg 5y ago

>Free mask distribution and promotion reduced the proportion of people who reported COVID-like symptoms on average by 11 percent, which was driven mainly by the effects of surgical masks. Villages where cloth masks were distributed experienced a 5 percent reduction in symptoms, while villages where surgical masks were distributed saw a reduction of 12 percent. About a third (40 percent) of those who reported COVID-19 symptoms agreed to have their blood tested for SARS-CoV-2. On average, researchers found a decrease of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections of 9 percent. This reduction was higher in villages that wore a surgical mask (11 percent) and in these, among individuals aged 60+ (35 percent). It is measuring the effectiveness of the public policy and comparing how it differs when the masks distributed were cloth versus surgical. There is nothing in this report about the effectiveness of masks on an individual level.

chitowneats 5y ago
"This report" does gloss over much of the results from the actual study. Here's the link to the paper: https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...
worker767424 5y ago
And at 9%, some of that is likely seeing trusted public figures essentially saying "it's not safe out there" by talking about masks, and people restricting their actions accordingly. It's really hard to actually test this.
timr 5y ago
> There is nothing in this report about the effectiveness of masks on an individual level. The DANMASK RCT [1] provided a direct test of masks as personal protective equipment, and found no support for masks. The criticism of that study, at that time, was that it didn't test the hypothesis of protecting others. So here we have an RCT that tests that hypothesis, and now that's not good enough, because the results aren't "at an individual level"? Boy, the ground sure is slippery around here! [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817