4 ms·

> With regard to <masks>, The Science™ really has never been controversial and has not changed significantly since the start of the pandemic That is, in actual

> With regard to <masks>, The Science™ really has never been controversial and has not changed significantly since the start of the pandemic That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB): > Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures. It goes on, and helpfully points out the problems with these studies that means it would be hasty to use them as the final word. > So we got into this situation unprepared with a faulty evidence base and hotly debated practices, after two decades of “pandemic preparedness”. You'll note that the debate ended with the British Medical Journal's[2] executive editor, a proponent of masks who states that they think CEMB's review and subsequent articles on the subject are mistaken, defending the CEMB's views from being censored by Facebook: > A disagreement among experts, especially about interpretation of a study, is a common occurrence. It is the usual business of science. I wish I could make that bold and quoted. > Only, Facebook didn’t see it that way. The social media platform that allows statements about injecting bleach to prevent covid-19, as well as calls to behead the leading US expert on pandemics,67 decreed that Heneghan and Jefferson should be censured for misinformation after they reposted their Spectator article on the site. The Science™ certainly isn't settled on this, to portray as such does a disservice to the actual pursuit of truth. And that after lamenting bias in reporting. > Perhaps we need to create a new degree program You mean, like the CEMB has?[3] > Our team research, practice and disseminate evidence-based medicine in health care decision making, and are committed to improving healthcare by fostering wider communication of high quality evidence, by promoting the principles of EBM through engagement, knowledge sharing, research and education. [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/ [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586 [3] https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/about-us/about-cebm https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/about-us/about-cebm

cm42 4y ago
> That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB): > Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures. Perhaps The Science™ did change a bit, particularly with regard to public policy, but I don't think anyone except the headline-skimming public and adults who still pull their shirt up over their nose when someone farts expected masks to do much of anything. It was always a kind of improvisational measure, as Science™ of course already knew the correct answer to be D) None of the above. The 2003 SARS studies in particular have been used in wilderness/disaster medicine as evidence for a lecture that goes something like this: "Stateside, you'll mostly always have enough top-notch equipment to go around, but should you find yourself in a clinic in sub-Saharan Africa, rural SE Asia, etc. during a disease outbreak, a surgical mask is probably better than nothing. Sure, you're fucked without a PAPR, and if there are no surgical masks available, perhaps wrapping a bandana or some gauze around your face (and/or saying a prayer) will keep you from dying, who knows. Good luck; have fun!" The difference between "things that sometimes work for certain patients/scenarios" and "things that we can prove work well enough to justify forcing on an entire population" is also relevant, and why I say I don't think <strike>Science</strike> Medicine has learned much from this - the answer has always been "use the correct mask for the situation", and these masks have never been the correct mask. This[1], for example, is one of those best-effort hacks one keeps in their toolbox, and anyone using it knows it's sub-par. No ortho would be surprised that their cell phone vibrator diagnosis didn't match the X-ray (and likely, neither would their patient) - but after six months of "Cell Phones Are X-Ray Machines" articles, the public is gonna be upset when they finally realize they aren't. > You mean, like the CEMB has? No, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/do-what-you-love/journalism https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/d... [1] https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf

cm42 4y ago

> That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB): > Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures. Perhaps The Science™ did change a bit, particularly with regard to public policy, but I don't think anyone except the headline-skimming public and adults who still pull their shirt up over their nose when someone farts expected masks to do much of anything. It was always a kind of improvisational measure, as Science™ of course already knew the correct answer to be D) None of the above. The 2003 SARS studies in particular have been used in wilderness/disaster medicine as evidence for a lecture that goes something like this: "Stateside, you'll mostly always have enough top-notch equipment to go around, but should you find yourself in a clinic in sub-Saharan Africa, rural SE Asia, etc. during a disease outbreak, a surgical mask is probably better than nothing. Sure, you're fucked without a PAPR, and if there are no surgical masks available, perhaps wrapping a bandana or some gauze around your face (and/or saying a prayer) will keep you from dying, who knows. Good luck; have fun!" The difference between "things that sometimes work for certain patients/scenarios" and "things that we can prove work well enough to justify forcing on an entire population" is also relevant, and why I say I don't think <strike>Science</strike> Medicine has learned much from this - the answer has always been "use the correct mask for the situation", and these masks have never been the correct mask. This[1], for example, is one of those best-effort hacks one keeps in their toolbox, and anyone using it knows it's sub-par. No ortho would be surprised that their cell phone vibrator diagnosis didn't match the X-ray (and likely, neither would their patient) - but after six months of "Cell Phones Are X-Ray Machines" articles, the public is gonna be upset when they finally realize they aren't. > You mean, like the CEMB has? No, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/do-what-you-love/journalism https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/d... [1] https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf