3 ms·
Consider taking it up with Lynne Peeples. The very subtitle of the piece is 'surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short', I have no idea w
by angelzen 5y ago
Consider taking it up with Lynne Peeples. The very subtitle of the piece is 'surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short', I have no idea why she thinks '11% drop in risk' is 'highly protective', but '5% drop' is 'falling short'. Either way the numbers appear marginal at best.
Edit: Fundamentally I have an issue with any definition of risk that bounds the measure to a short time frame. For all we know the mask intervention may slow the spread speed by a small factor, but were we to measure over a year (or even longer) we might observe the same total number of infections: the virus is going to infect everyone susceptible, only at a slightly slower pace.
- mike00632 5y ago1. Based on the size of the study there are thresholds for statistical significance. 2. Only a portion of the people were even wearing masks. A few people wore masks and the risk of infection dropped by a few percent. Declaring masks don't work because a couple people wore them yet the entire population didn't see a complete decline in infection is illogical and dishonest. 3. The study not being able to conclude in a statistically significant way that cloth masks prevent infection is completely different from concluding that cloth masks are worthless. Your aversion to masks is completely a reflection of your bias and not supported by this study.
- timr 5y ago> A few people wore masks ...there were 54,000 people in the cloth mask villages, and 106,000 people in the surgical mask villages. Compliance was over 40%. That's more than "a few people".