4 ms·

It is astounding that, in 2022, people are still throwing around simplistic, authoritative statements and providing links to articles that do not support those

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.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > Your last linked article [...]. The article is based on an imperfect study, which found that masks could reduce infection rates by almost 50%, but I can accept your criticism on this, and probably should not have used it to support my argument. However, if you're telling me that it's not evidence that masks can protect you, then it can't possibly be evidence that 'a mask probably won't protect you' for the same reason. I agree that the majority of the studies cited by the CDC are statistical analyses, but not sure I agree about the low n-values. There is definitely strong evidence that mask wearing reduces overall transmission in the community. It is conceivable that the only reason for this reduced transmission is because it stops people infecting others. The studies which look specifically at whether a mask protects a wearer individually or not do have lower n-values (Payne, Doung-Ngern, Wang X), but all of them find that it does [note: I haven't looked for studies that don't find this, if you would like to share some, I'd be happy to look at them]. It's unlikely you'll get experimentally tested results because it would be unethical to create the circumstances which would allow you to test this experimentally. > As the person making the positive statement [...] I'm sure you are fully aware where the burden of proof lies. I'm not sure you understand how burden of proof works. Anyone who makes an assertion carries a burden of proof, whether it's a positive assertion ('wearing a mask protects the wearer') or a negative one ('wearing a mask does not protect the wearer' or 'a mask probably won't protect you'). I think I'm arguing my part clearly, offering significant (although not irreproachable) evidence that wearing a mask DOES protect the wearer. The only evidence I've seen that wearing a mask DOES NOT protect the wearer is my own citation, which can't rule out masks being 46% effective in reducing the likelihood of catching COVID-19. Best OP can get away with, even if you don't accept the evidence I've presented, would be 'there's no irrefutable evidence that masks will protect you'.
    - throw_life 5y ago
      The Payne study on USS Roosevelt has a very small sample size compared to the number of confounding variables (the paper reports that they allowed the ~300 respondents to select multiple responses, including adherence to social distancing, interacting with people later known to have Covid, etc, etc. It also covered one outbreak over 4 days). Wang's study, as well has having a very small sample number, concludes that other things like "taking a taxi one or more less times per week", "having a pet", and "not going to a farmer's market" are about as effective in reducing risk to the person as wearing a mask. The Doung-Ngern study is a little better, but still I am not sure how they can conclude that one risk can be narrowly identified with a relatively small sample size and relatively many confounding factors (ie, mask wearers are probably less likely to go out, go indoors in public spaces, etc). >or a negative one ('wearing a mask does not protect the wearer' or 'a mask probably won't protect you'). No, you need to make a positive, proven statement in the first place (ie, "wear this mask to protect yourself"), otherwise you fall victim to the "Lucky Underpants" effect. I wear my lucky underpants to every sports game, and my team always win. If you tell me "no, they don't, that's ridiculous", then are you saying that you will also need to prove that to me? >offering significant (although not irreproachable) evidence None of those studies you linked are significant evidence. They are weak-sauce.

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.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > Your last linked article [...]. The article is based on an imperfect study, which found that masks could reduce infection rates by almost 50%, but I can accept your criticism on this, and probably should not have used it to support my argument. However, if you're telling me that it's not evidence that masks can protect you, then it can't possibly be evidence that 'a mask probably won't protect you' for the same reason. I agree that the majority of the studies cited by the CDC are statistical analyses, but not sure I agree about the low n-values. There is definitely strong evidence that mask wearing reduces overall transmission in the community. It is conceivable that the only reason for this reduced transmission is because it stops people infecting others. The studies which look specifically at whether a mask protects a wearer individually or not do have lower n-values (Payne, Doung-Ngern, Wang X), but all of them find that it does [note: I haven't looked for studies that don't find this, if you would like to share some, I'd be happy to look at them]. It's unlikely you'll get experimentally tested results because it would be unethical to create the circumstances which would allow you to test this experimentally. > As the person making the positive statement [...] I'm sure you are fully aware where the burden of proof lies. I'm not sure you understand how burden of proof works. Anyone who makes an assertion carries a burden of proof, whether it's a positive assertion ('wearing a mask protects the wearer') or a negative one ('wearing a mask does not protect the wearer' or 'a mask probably won't protect you'). I think I'm arguing my part clearly, offering significant (although not irreproachable) evidence that wearing a mask DOES protect the wearer. The only evidence I've seen that wearing a mask DOES NOT protect the wearer is my own citation, which can't rule out masks being 46% effective in reducing the likelihood of catching COVID-19. Best OP can get away with, even if you don't accept the evidence I've presented, would be 'there's no irrefutable evidence that masks will protect you'.
  - throw_life 5y ago
    The Payne study on USS Roosevelt has a very small sample size compared to the number of confounding variables (the paper reports that they allowed the ~300 respondents to select multiple responses, including adherence to social distancing, interacting with people later known to have Covid, etc, etc. It also covered one outbreak over 4 days). Wang's study, as well has having a very small sample number, concludes that other things like "taking a taxi one or more less times per week", "having a pet", and "not going to a farmer's market" are about as effective in reducing risk to the person as wearing a mask. The Doung-Ngern study is a little better, but still I am not sure how they can conclude that one risk can be narrowly identified with a relatively small sample size and relatively many confounding factors (ie, mask wearers are probably less likely to go out, go indoors in public spaces, etc). >or a negative one ('wearing a mask does not protect the wearer' or 'a mask probably won't protect you'). No, you need to make a positive, proven statement in the first place (ie, "wear this mask to protect yourself"), otherwise you fall victim to the "Lucky Underpants" effect. I wear my lucky underpants to every sports game, and my team always win. If you tell me "no, they don't, that's ridiculous", then are you saying that you will also need to prove that to me? >offering significant (although not irreproachable) evidence None of those studies you linked are significant evidence. They are weak-sauce.