4 ms·

To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results

To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show causation, then maybe it's time to stop blindly repeating the mantra that masks are effective. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729

mejutoco 4y ago
I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you. There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.
aljungberg 4y ago
The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)
- ubertaco 4y ago
  >(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.) My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy). I do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.
  - aljungberg 4y ago
    It’s fine to make mistakes, especially in a fluid, developing situation. And it is precisely therefore we shouldn’t dress up our hypothesises as fact. The actors here presented mask dictates as gospel. They were either wrong when anti-mask or wrong when pro-mask, but somehow conveyed absolute confidence in both cases. This is very harmful for the public discourse and for the reputation of the authorities during a time when reputation was paramount. It’s okay not to know everything, just be honest about it.
    - fireflash38 4y ago
      The experts did NOT state it as fact. Pretty much ever. They couched it in terms as best they knew. If you want to argue that people consuming that and spreading that info put it in bad terms, you can, but I think that's a poor argument in general.
      - aljungberg 4y ago
        I disagree that people were spreading it in bad terms, if by that you mean the general public. Just look at what the officials actually said. Here’s March 2020: > “You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams said. England’s chief medical officer, same month: > Prof Whitty said: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.” Dr Fauci: > “Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, an immunologist and a public face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, on CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month. He, like the others, suggested that masks could put users at risk by causing them to touch their face more often. The WHO advised against it (to your point they did couch their language so much that it wasn’t even clear what they were really advising [1]). And these are just the ones I could find quickly right now. From memory, the message was even stronger than this and even proliferated in this very forum. There was a time when you kind of had to duck and speak quietly if you wanted to bring up the idea that maybe this anti-mask thing wasn’t settled fact. 1: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance-masks-covid-19-epidemic/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance...
gilbetron 4y ago
Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't even looking. Please look and stop trying to sit in your echo chamber.
- nostrebored 4y ago
  Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear. There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters. Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to turn course.
  - gilbetron 4y ago
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y Your first two statements are just wrong, shockingly so after over 2 years where you could have educated yourself and decided not to. Your last statement is definitely something we need to look into, but I think the development delays are probably minimal (speaking as a parent of a kid that wore masks at a critical age), but I think the social isolation was far more significant.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      "The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth." The cloth results were statistically insignificant, meaning indistinguishable from noise. The surgical mask results barely passed the statistical significance test, but lose that significance as soon as the data are stratified by age. On top of that, there have been numerous problems with the study that call into questions even the incredibly meager positive results it managed to show: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-e... You are the one who needs to educate yourself.
sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
You do you, but I've enjoyed not even getting the slightest cold for the last couple years that I might just keep masking in a lot of public spaces for the foreseeable future. It's anecdata for sure, but my experience seems to suggest that masks can help protect against airborne transmissible viral infections. For more anecdata, pretty much everyone in my extended contacts that has chosen to relax their masking posture has gotten covid at some point since. Those that continue stricter protocols get sick less, bet it colds covid or flu. I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why...
- Izkata 4y ago
  > I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why... Those masks are as much about blocking blood spurts from the patient as they are about blocking spit from the doctor. They're not meant for blocking airborne viruses either way.
- californical 4y ago
  I do wonder if there are long-term affects from sheltering our immune systems for extended periods. Now, I’m still in favor of wearing masks in some particularly high-risk places. And absolutely supported masks in the earlier days (until vaccines were readily available & common). But by not getting exposure to the regular tiny amounts of bacteria and viruses that float around from other people (our body deals with quickly and we never feel sick), do we know anything about the long term affects of that on the immune system? Genuinely curious because I couldn’t find anything. We know it causes an increase in blood-CO2 concentration: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ And possibly a decrease in white blood cell count: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585544/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585544/ But I don’t think we know yet if there are long-term immune system complications

mejutoco 4y ago

I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you. There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.

aljungberg 4y ago

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

ubertaco 4y ago
>(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.) My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy). I do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.
- aljungberg 4y ago
  It’s fine to make mistakes, especially in a fluid, developing situation. And it is precisely therefore we shouldn’t dress up our hypothesises as fact. The actors here presented mask dictates as gospel. They were either wrong when anti-mask or wrong when pro-mask, but somehow conveyed absolute confidence in both cases. This is very harmful for the public discourse and for the reputation of the authorities during a time when reputation was paramount. It’s okay not to know everything, just be honest about it.
  - fireflash38 4y ago
    The experts did NOT state it as fact. Pretty much ever. They couched it in terms as best they knew. If you want to argue that people consuming that and spreading that info put it in bad terms, you can, but I think that's a poor argument in general.
    - aljungberg 4y ago
      I disagree that people were spreading it in bad terms, if by that you mean the general public. Just look at what the officials actually said. Here’s March 2020: > “You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams said. England’s chief medical officer, same month: > Prof Whitty said: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.” Dr Fauci: > “Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, an immunologist and a public face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, on CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month. He, like the others, suggested that masks could put users at risk by causing them to touch their face more often. The WHO advised against it (to your point they did couch their language so much that it wasn’t even clear what they were really advising [1]). And these are just the ones I could find quickly right now. From memory, the message was even stronger than this and even proliferated in this very forum. There was a time when you kind of had to duck and speak quietly if you wanted to bring up the idea that maybe this anti-mask thing wasn’t settled fact. 1: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance-masks-covid-19-epidemic/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance...

gilbetron 4y ago

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't even looking. Please look and stop trying to sit in your echo chamber.

nostrebored 4y ago
Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear. There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters. Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to turn course.
- gilbetron 4y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y Your first two statements are just wrong, shockingly so after over 2 years where you could have educated yourself and decided not to. Your last statement is definitely something we need to look into, but I think the development delays are probably minimal (speaking as a parent of a kid that wore masks at a critical age), but I think the social isolation was far more significant.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    "The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth." The cloth results were statistically insignificant, meaning indistinguishable from noise. The surgical mask results barely passed the statistical significance test, but lose that significance as soon as the data are stratified by age. On top of that, there have been numerous problems with the study that call into questions even the incredibly meager positive results it managed to show: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-excluded-crucial-data https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-e... You are the one who needs to educate yourself.

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago

You do you, but I've enjoyed not even getting the slightest cold for the last couple years that I might just keep masking in a lot of public spaces for the foreseeable future. It's anecdata for sure, but my experience seems to suggest that masks can help protect against airborne transmissible viral infections. For more anecdata, pretty much everyone in my extended contacts that has chosen to relax their masking posture has gotten covid at some point since. Those that continue stricter protocols get sick less, bet it colds covid or flu. I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why...

Izkata 4y ago
> I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why... Those masks are as much about blocking blood spurts from the patient as they are about blocking spit from the doctor. They're not meant for blocking airborne viruses either way.
californical 4y ago
I do wonder if there are long-term affects from sheltering our immune systems for extended periods. Now, I’m still in favor of wearing masks in some particularly high-risk places. And absolutely supported masks in the earlier days (until vaccines were readily available & common). But by not getting exposure to the regular tiny amounts of bacteria and viruses that float around from other people (our body deals with quickly and we never feel sick), do we know anything about the long term affects of that on the immune system? Genuinely curious because I couldn’t find anything. We know it causes an increase in blood-CO2 concentration: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ And possibly a decrease in white blood cell count: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585544/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585544/ But I don’t think we know yet if there are long-term immune system complications