6 ms·

You are coming to this article with your own biases. You seem to be basing your analysis that we "know" masking is highly effective. That is not true. The evide

You are coming to this article with your own biases. You seem to be basing your analysis that we "know" masking is highly effective. That is not true. The evidence used to justify this policy is low quality(don't you remember the CDC hair salon study) and dependent on the precautionary principle. High quality evidence on masking has either low effect sizes or is inconclusive. It is certainly not settled science.

flerchin 5y ago
We do know masks prevent the spread disease. Look in any Operating Room. If masking by the general public is shown to be ineffective, that only argues for further education on how to mask properly.
- crisdux 5y ago
  You are obviously conflating the use of surgical masks in operating rooms that are for stopping droplets with using masks to stop a respiratory airborne virus. How can this possibly be the basis of your argument? It's utter nonsense.
- harpersealtako 5y ago
  I see the "surgeons use masks in operating rooms, this proves public masking prevents the spread of COVID" argument nearly every time a mask debate appears on this site or others, and it just seems so...obviously fallacious and absurd to me on a dozen different levels, that I almost feel like I'm missing some fundamental point about it.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    The point is that masks are obviously effective. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that masks are not effective despite the overwhelming evidence in support of masks. Even the Reason article admits that masks are effective despite its misleading headline that suggests masks are not effective.
    - harpersealtako 5y ago
      I would like you to consider the possibility that the evidence in favor of masks is probably overwhelming as you might believe. The studies that have been done have so many cofounders as to be flawed at best, useless at worst. The "overwhelming evidence" line not even consistent with the studies that do strongly support maskin. In addition, the arguments have become political/partisan which muddies discussion (i.e. even if you or I had a study that proved it 100% beyond a shadow of doubt, many people would refuse to believe it nonetheless), and in general even though I personally believe that masks are effective at slowing down the spread of covid, I don't believe it particularly strongly and my belief has a lot of qualifiers to it. The phrase "overwhelming evidence in support of masks" overstates your point.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  Simple observation: The huge difference in infection rates between Democratic and Republican areas--far more than can be accounted for by the vaccination rate. That says behavior (masks + distancing) is definitely a substantial factor. Also note the much smaller effect of mask mandates--it's compliance that matters, not merely the rules.
  - yucky 5y ago
    Don't New York and Florida have essentially identical rates of infection though?
    - relaxing 5y ago
      Of course, the only two states.
      - yucky 5y ago
        Florida has been the media whipping boy for the entire pandemic, and yet here we are almost 2 years in and their infection rates are on par with the states that had the most restrictions. Maybe that is instructive.
        LorenPechtel 5y ago
        Only because Omicron first showed up in the areas with more international travel. And note that the Florida data is untrustworthy, anyway.
relaxing 5y ago
Mask resistance is what's dependent on the precautionary principle. The science is pretty clear. "Mask distribution and promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections." - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
- crisdux 5y ago
  I am completely aware of that study. That study is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. The effect sizes were barely significant. Not all groups managed any effect of significance. There are biases, confounding factors and limitations of that study. Those results are not the slam dunk you think they are. I implore you to read the study carefully.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    Barely significant? What is that supposed to mean? The evidence is clear - mask wearing reduces infections. You seem to be arguing something else.
    - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
      According to the study itself, the evidence is _not_ clear: > Although the point estimates for cloth masks suggests that they reduce risk, the confidence limits include both an effect size similar to surgical masks and no effect at all
      - mike00632 5y ago
        You're making a mistake by drawing conclusions that masks aren't effective. Pointing to one study which has non-significant data means you shouldn't draw any conclusion at all from it.
        ZephyrBlu 5y ago
        I'm not drawing conclusions from that study, I'm pointing out that the study which the OP used to say "the science is pretty clear" and "the evidence is clear" does not reach the same conclusion as OP. Your comment should really be directed at the OP, not me.

flerchin 5y ago

We do know masks prevent the spread disease. Look in any Operating Room. If masking by the general public is shown to be ineffective, that only argues for further education on how to mask properly.

crisdux 5y ago
You are obviously conflating the use of surgical masks in operating rooms that are for stopping droplets with using masks to stop a respiratory airborne virus. How can this possibly be the basis of your argument? It's utter nonsense.
harpersealtako 5y ago
I see the "surgeons use masks in operating rooms, this proves public masking prevents the spread of COVID" argument nearly every time a mask debate appears on this site or others, and it just seems so...obviously fallacious and absurd to me on a dozen different levels, that I almost feel like I'm missing some fundamental point about it.
- mike00632 5y ago
  The point is that masks are obviously effective. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion that masks are not effective despite the overwhelming evidence in support of masks. Even the Reason article admits that masks are effective despite its misleading headline that suggests masks are not effective.
  - harpersealtako 5y ago
    I would like you to consider the possibility that the evidence in favor of masks is probably overwhelming as you might believe. The studies that have been done have so many cofounders as to be flawed at best, useless at worst. The "overwhelming evidence" line not even consistent with the studies that do strongly support maskin. In addition, the arguments have become political/partisan which muddies discussion (i.e. even if you or I had a study that proved it 100% beyond a shadow of doubt, many people would refuse to believe it nonetheless), and in general even though I personally believe that masks are effective at slowing down the spread of covid, I don't believe it particularly strongly and my belief has a lot of qualifiers to it. The phrase "overwhelming evidence in support of masks" overstates your point.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Simple observation: The huge difference in infection rates between Democratic and Republican areas--far more than can be accounted for by the vaccination rate. That says behavior (masks + distancing) is definitely a substantial factor. Also note the much smaller effect of mask mandates--it's compliance that matters, not merely the rules.
- yucky 5y ago
  Don't New York and Florida have essentially identical rates of infection though?
  - relaxing 5y ago
    Of course, the only two states.
    - yucky 5y ago
      Florida has been the media whipping boy for the entire pandemic, and yet here we are almost 2 years in and their infection rates are on par with the states that had the most restrictions. Maybe that is instructive.
      - LorenPechtel 5y ago
        Only because Omicron first showed up in the areas with more international travel. And note that the Florida data is untrustworthy, anyway.

relaxing 5y ago

Mask resistance is what's dependent on the precautionary principle. The science is pretty clear. "Mask distribution and promotion was a scalable and effective method to reduce symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections." - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

crisdux 5y ago
I am completely aware of that study. That study is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my comment. The effect sizes were barely significant. Not all groups managed any effect of significance. There are biases, confounding factors and limitations of that study. Those results are not the slam dunk you think they are. I implore you to read the study carefully.
- relaxing 5y ago
  Barely significant? What is that supposed to mean? The evidence is clear - mask wearing reduces infections. You seem to be arguing something else.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    According to the study itself, the evidence is _not_ clear: > Although the point estimates for cloth masks suggests that they reduce risk, the confidence limits include both an effect size similar to surgical masks and no effect at all
    - mike00632 5y ago
      You're making a mistake by drawing conclusions that masks aren't effective. Pointing to one study which has non-significant data means you shouldn't draw any conclusion at all from it.
      - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
        I'm not drawing conclusions from that study, I'm pointing out that the study which the OP used to say "the science is pretty clear" and "the evidence is clear" does not reach the same conclusion as OP. Your comment should really be directed at the OP, not me.