5 ms·

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/e

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-not-believe https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/bangladesh-mask-study-do-... https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article "At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI." https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.5-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337199/WHO-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7546829/

roywiggins 5y ago
Look, I'm not qualified to evaluate a study like this, but between Science and "el gato malo" published on Substack, I think I'm going to have to go with Science on this one, pending some recognized expert in the field with a human name saying otherwise.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Skepticism and methodological criticism are definitionally "science". Not cult like faith. Ad hominems and appeals to authority are not valid arguments.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    Paying more attention to information in a peer-reviewed journal than information in a pseudonymous substack is not "cult-like faith." Of course the study could be wrong.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      The study is not and has not passed peer review.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        Hasn't it? Looks published to me. It has a doi and everything. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        My mistake, the link in the article you first posted still shows it as a working paper and I couldn't find it with the original title when searching. Interestingly the DOI does not show up https://dx.doi.org/ https://dx.doi.org/ Here's some further criticisms: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  The author of the study that the bad cat is trying to discredit wrote a long, persuasive rebuttal to the simplistic critiques he's been reading on Tyler Cowen's blog; https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/jason-abaluck-writes-me-about-masks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/ja... They saw a significant reduction in covid presence in communities with more masking -- even though total masking was still only 40% in those communities -- which is very much in line with all the other literature. I literally can't believe people still pretend like masks (especially surgical/KN95s) don't protect people when it's completely self-evident since we've used them forever to protect people in medical settings.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    It doesn't address the primary criticisms of the bad cat, and you should really read the comments on the article you linked, as well as they meta-analyses I provided on mask effectiveness when it comes to respiratory illnesses in healthcare and community settings. They don't work, at all, across decades of research and dozens of studies. They're not going to magically start working for COVID when they haven't worked for the flu or any other respiratory virus in the past. >forever to protect people in medical settings. Surgical masks in medical settings are designed to protect from bacterial infections, not viral ones.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      > and you should really read the comments on the article you linked, as well as they meta-analyses I provided on mask effectiveness when it comes to respiratory illnesses in healthcare and community settings. Unfortunately, Tyler Cowen's blog has worse Covid commentary than even HN does, which is pretty impressive given the amount of HCQ/Ivermectin/bioweapon conspiracy theorizing here. > Surgical masks in medical settings are designed to protect from bacterial infections, not viral ones. This is patently untrue.. you're not one of those "virus particles can fit through masks" people are you? As just one example of how obvious it is that masks protect against viruses in HCW from the last SARS outbreak; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112437/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112437/

roywiggins 5y ago

Look, I'm not qualified to evaluate a study like this, but between Science and "el gato malo" published on Substack, I think I'm going to have to go with Science on this one, pending some recognized expert in the field with a human name saying otherwise.

defaultprimate 5y ago
Skepticism and methodological criticism are definitionally "science". Not cult like faith. Ad hominems and appeals to authority are not valid arguments.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Paying more attention to information in a peer-reviewed journal than information in a pseudonymous substack is not "cult-like faith." Of course the study could be wrong.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    The study is not and has not passed peer review.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      Hasn't it? Looks published to me. It has a doi and everything. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        My mistake, the link in the article you first posted still shows it as a working paper and I couldn't find it with the original title when searching. Interestingly the DOI does not show up https://dx.doi.org/ https://dx.doi.org/ Here's some further criticisms: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1073440/latest.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
mikeyouse 5y ago
The author of the study that the bad cat is trying to discredit wrote a long, persuasive rebuttal to the simplistic critiques he's been reading on Tyler Cowen's blog; https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/jason-abaluck-writes-me-about-masks.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/ja... They saw a significant reduction in covid presence in communities with more masking -- even though total masking was still only 40% in those communities -- which is very much in line with all the other literature. I literally can't believe people still pretend like masks (especially surgical/KN95s) don't protect people when it's completely self-evident since we've used them forever to protect people in medical settings.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  It doesn't address the primary criticisms of the bad cat, and you should really read the comments on the article you linked, as well as they meta-analyses I provided on mask effectiveness when it comes to respiratory illnesses in healthcare and community settings. They don't work, at all, across decades of research and dozens of studies. They're not going to magically start working for COVID when they haven't worked for the flu or any other respiratory virus in the past. >forever to protect people in medical settings. Surgical masks in medical settings are designed to protect from bacterial infections, not viral ones.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    > and you should really read the comments on the article you linked, as well as they meta-analyses I provided on mask effectiveness when it comes to respiratory illnesses in healthcare and community settings. Unfortunately, Tyler Cowen's blog has worse Covid commentary than even HN does, which is pretty impressive given the amount of HCQ/Ivermectin/bioweapon conspiracy theorizing here. > Surgical masks in medical settings are designed to protect from bacterial infections, not viral ones. This is patently untrue.. you're not one of those "virus particles can fit through masks" people are you? As just one example of how obvious it is that masks protect against viruses in HCW from the last SARS outbreak; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112437/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112437/