6 ms·

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/

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").
        glofish 5y ago
        they are doing the opposite, their current caseload growth is higher than that of other countries, That is not flattening for sure, it is more explosive - spiking the curve not flattening it.
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        Let’s come back and talk once their combined cases reach higher than the US’s. Also I think worth noting that South Korea has better testing infrastructure, so their number is likely to be fairly accurate, while the number for the US is likely under-reported. Hong Kong’s number already seems to be dropping off.
        glofish 5y ago
        If you care about current assesments read this (published March 7, 2022): Unravelling the Role of the Mandatory Use of Face Covering Masks for the Control of SARS-CoV-2 in Schools: A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort in Catalonia (Spain) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 FCM = Face Covering Mandates > Interpretation: FCM mandates in schools were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective. Instead, age-dependency was the most important factor in explaining the transmission risk for children attending school.
- throw_life 5y ago
  It is astounding that, in 2022, people are still throwing around simplistic, authoritative statements and providing links to articles that do not support those statements. This style of discourse has done "your side" an enormous dis-service over the past two years, and I suspect the damage is permanent. Are you relying on people not being able to fully understand the linked articles? None of those articles lend much support to the idea that masks protect the wearer, and if anything, conclude that they do not. This makes perfect sense, as the entire efficacy of mask wearing is based on the idea that even the coarse weave of cloth can reduce the larger aerosols and droplets found at the source. (As a side note, I find even this premise shaky - you could make an equally convincing mental model of the weave of cloth masks instead acting to split larger aerosols and droplets and thus project a a finer mist. Much like squeezing jelly through a colander. ) It is also surprising that you are trying to make this point. Very little public messaging has contained the idea that masks protect yourself - it's all about protecting others. Whether mass mask wearing achieves this outcome is another discussion entirely.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    Which articles conclude that wearing a mask does not protect the wearer? I'm not sure about public messaging in your locality, but where I am, the messages have very much been that wearing a mask protects both you and others, with a focus on higher standards (FFP2 or above) and proper fit protecting you better. I'm quite happy to concede that masks have downsides, but I would highlight that I was responding to a simplistic authoritative statement, rather than making one of my own out of nowhere.
    - throw_life 5y ago
      Your last linked article, which specifically tests the idea that wearing a surgical mask protects the wearer from airbourne disease, concludes this: >The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point The others, which consist largely of wide-ranging statistical analyses with low n values, mostly analyse the overall effect of public mask wearing and have very little to say on the cause (for example, the long list of articles on the CDC page). Are you able to point to any in particular that do say this? As the person making the positive statement ("wearing a mask protects the wearer"), I'm sure you are fully aware where the burden of proof lies.
- chucksta 5y ago
  Is "wearing the correct mask, and in the correct method, could provide some protection" correct in your mind? Or have you not seen people walking around with cut off shirt sleeves on their face as a "mask"? Or half their face hanging out of it? Or wearing a cotton mask? All effectively useless
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    That's a fair point. I'd accept 'a mask probably won't protect you if you don't wear it properly', or even 'you can still catch COVID even if you wear a mask', because those things are both true. I object though to the phrasing that a 'mask probably won't protect you'. A mask MAY NOT protect you, but PROBABLY will.

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").
      - glofish 5y ago
        they are doing the opposite, their current caseload growth is higher than that of other countries, That is not flattening for sure, it is more explosive - spiking the curve not flattening it.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      Let’s come back and talk once their combined cases reach higher than the US’s. Also I think worth noting that South Korea has better testing infrastructure, so their number is likely to be fairly accurate, while the number for the US is likely under-reported. Hong Kong’s number already seems to be dropping off.
      - glofish 5y ago
        If you care about current assesments read this (published March 7, 2022): Unravelling the Role of the Mandatory Use of Face Covering Masks for the Control of SARS-CoV-2 in Schools: A Quasi-Experimental Study Nested in a Population-Based Cohort in Catalonia (Spain) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 FCM = Face Covering Mandates > Interpretation: FCM mandates in schools were not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence or transmission, suggesting that this intervention was not effective. Instead, age-dependency was the most important factor in explaining the transmission risk for children attending school.
throw_life 5y ago
It is astounding that, in 2022, people are still throwing around simplistic, authoritative statements and providing links to articles that do not support those statements. This style of discourse has done "your side" an enormous dis-service over the past two years, and I suspect the damage is permanent. Are you relying on people not being able to fully understand the linked articles? None of those articles lend much support to the idea that masks protect the wearer, and if anything, conclude that they do not. This makes perfect sense, as the entire efficacy of mask wearing is based on the idea that even the coarse weave of cloth can reduce the larger aerosols and droplets found at the source. (As a side note, I find even this premise shaky - you could make an equally convincing mental model of the weave of cloth masks instead acting to split larger aerosols and droplets and thus project a a finer mist. Much like squeezing jelly through a colander. ) It is also surprising that you are trying to make this point. Very little public messaging has contained the idea that masks protect yourself - it's all about protecting others. Whether mass mask wearing achieves this outcome is another discussion entirely.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  Which articles conclude that wearing a mask does not protect the wearer? I'm not sure about public messaging in your locality, but where I am, the messages have very much been that wearing a mask protects both you and others, with a focus on higher standards (FFP2 or above) and proper fit protecting you better. I'm quite happy to concede that masks have downsides, but I would highlight that I was responding to a simplistic authoritative statement, rather than making one of my own out of nowhere.
  - throw_life 5y ago
    Your last linked article, which specifically tests the idea that wearing a surgical mask protects the wearer from airbourne disease, concludes this: >The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point The others, which consist largely of wide-ranging statistical analyses with low n values, mostly analyse the overall effect of public mask wearing and have very little to say on the cause (for example, the long list of articles on the CDC page). Are you able to point to any in particular that do say this? As the person making the positive statement ("wearing a mask protects the wearer"), I'm sure you are fully aware where the burden of proof lies.
chucksta 5y ago
Is "wearing the correct mask, and in the correct method, could provide some protection" correct in your mind? Or have you not seen people walking around with cut off shirt sleeves on their face as a "mask"? Or half their face hanging out of it? Or wearing a cotton mask? All effectively useless
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  That's a fair point. I'd accept 'a mask probably won't protect you if you don't wear it properly', or even 'you can still catch COVID even if you wear a mask', because those things are both true. I object though to the phrasing that a 'mask probably won't protect you'. A mask MAY NOT protect you, but PROBABLY will.