5 ms·

Frankly, in my opinion this is obvious. The role of the whole face in the social development of babies is very well known - I'm sure we all heard the story abou

Frankly, in my opinion this is obvious. The role of the whole face in the social development of babies is very well known - I'm sure we all heard the story about ducklings being imprinted with human faces after being hatched in an incubator. It's not limited to life in the home either - I really don't like that most of the people my small children have seen outside the house have been masked. In fact, when people try to interact with our kids with the typical smiling and cooing, and get limited response, I have taken to telling them that it might be because my kids can't see their expressions. The issue I see is that, at least where I live, the public messaging has been "there is no downside to wearing a mask, just put it on". This has, in my opinion, done huge damage to the credibility of science-based public messaging. A much more honest and accurate message would have been "there are some downsides, but based on our understanding of the evidence, we think the benefits outweigh the risks".

ThunderSizzle 5y ago
Honest and accurate messaging needs to be this: 1) A mask probably won't protect you. 2) a mask might protect someone else if you spit while talking or sneeze/cough without covering yourself 3) however, a mask might make people who run on feelings feel better around you 4) masks might cause anxiety and developmental issues due to lack of human connection if it is widespread and consistent Then let people decide.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  It is astounding that in 2022, there are still people saying such provably untrue things as 'a mask probably won't protect you'. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
  - glofish 5y ago
    Above you are citing the DANMASK study that found a tiny effect size of −0.3 (!) percentage points with no statistical significance to mask wearing. In what world would that be evidence that masks work? For what is worth, at this point there is little reason to cite and refer to these early publications and estimates anyway. Those were early guesses in a hysterical world. Empirical, observable direct evidence from countries where masks are mandatory, from Germany (N95! is mandatory) to South Korea, Hong Kong etc makes it evident that masks have no effect on the spread of this particular disease.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Yeah I linked it last because it's fairly weak. The CDC page I think shows the most solid evidence, consolidating a large number of different studies with different methodologies. You mention: > Empirical, observable direct evidence from countries where masks are mandatory, from Germany (N95! is mandatory) to South Korea, Hong Kong etc makes it evident that masks have no effect on the spread of this particular disease. Seems South Korea's infections per million is 90 000, Hong Kong's is 63 000, Germany's infections per million is around 190 000, compared to countries with no mask mandate, these numbers seem relatively low. Could you share specifically what data you're looking at that contradicts what I'm saying?
      - glofish 5y ago
        because it is ain't over in those countries not one bit. How can you possibly even bring any data about South Korea or Hong Kong into this discussion when these place have the highest caseloads ever right at this moment? The caseload today (March 7, 2022) in Hong Kong per 100K people is 5000 cases, more the double (!) of the highest caseload ever observed in the US. Same story with South Korea. If anything, empirical data shows that using whatever measures they were doing lead to sudden, explosive caseloads.
        throw_life 5y ago
        It's as if the best you can do is delay the inevitable (which could also be re-phrased as "flatten the curve").

ThunderSizzle 5y ago

Honest and accurate messaging needs to be this: 1) A mask probably won't protect you. 2) a mask might protect someone else if you spit while talking or sneeze/cough without covering yourself 3) however, a mask might make people who run on feelings feel better around you 4) masks might cause anxiety and developmental issues due to lack of human connection if it is widespread and consistent Then let people decide.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
It is astounding that in 2022, there are still people saying such provably untrue things as 'a mask probably won't protect you'. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1619457332454 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
- glofish 5y ago
  Above you are citing the DANMASK study that found a tiny effect size of −0.3 (!) percentage points with no statistical significance to mask wearing. In what world would that be evidence that masks work? For what is worth, at this point there is little reason to cite and refer to these early publications and estimates anyway. Those were early guesses in a hysterical world. Empirical, observable direct evidence from countries where masks are mandatory, from Germany (N95! is mandatory) to South Korea, Hong Kong etc makes it evident that masks have no effect on the spread of this particular disease.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    Yeah I linked it last because it's fairly weak. The CDC page I think shows the most solid evidence, consolidating a large number of different studies with different methodologies. You mention: > Empirical, observable direct evidence from countries where masks are mandatory, from Germany (N95! is mandatory) to South Korea, Hong Kong etc makes it evident that masks have no effect on the spread of this particular disease. Seems South Korea's infections per million is 90 000, Hong Kong's is 63 000, Germany's infections per million is around 190 000, compared to countries with no mask mandate, these numbers seem relatively low. Could you share specifically what data you're looking at that contradicts what I'm saying?
    - glofish 5y ago
      because it is ain't over in those countries not one bit. How can you possibly even bring any data about South Korea or Hong Kong into this discussion when these place have the highest caseloads ever right at this moment? The caseload today (March 7, 2022) in Hong Kong per 100K people is 5000 cases, more the double (!) of the highest caseload ever observed in the US. Same story with South Korea. If anything, empirical data shows that using whatever measures they were doing lead to sudden, explosive caseloads.
      - throw_life 5y ago
        It's as if the best you can do is delay the inevitable (which could also be re-phrased as "flatten the curve").