4 ms·

> The picture is very clear here. I wish it were. It should not be difficult to verify that N95 masks filter COVID virus particles effectively. If such a stu

> The picture is very clear here. I wish it were. It should not be difficult to verify that N95 masks filter COVID virus particles effectively. If such a study had been performed, nobody could reasonably hypothesize that, owing to the properties of the viral envelope, an N95 filter could stop nanometer black carbon particles but not COVID viruses of the same size. It is baffling that the very basic experiment has not been done: DOES N95 FILTER COVID? The advancement of human knowledge absolutely depends on VERIFYING assumptions. Institutionalizing common beliefs without empirical data is a crime against science.

azakai 4y ago
Why are you certain such studies have not been done? Plenty of things have been published in that space. For example, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/226/2/199/6582941 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/226/2/199/6582941 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.654317/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.65431... You might respond with some specific skepticism about some particular detail in either study. But e.g. the first is in the respected Journal of Infectious Diseases. It passed peer review. And plenty of other studies exist. The bigger picture here is that every major health agency in the world recommends good masks such as N95s, as mentioned earlier. That is the standard for relevant healthcare workers for good reason. The experts in those agencies have looked at the studies and made that conclusion, which is the general consensus in the healthcare field. There is some chance all the experts are wrong on this. That happens sometimes. But it's rare.
- timr 4y ago
  I gave you a comprehensive review of all literature related to masks, used on people, to prevent actual illness. You don't like the conclusion of that data (there's little clinical evidence supporting their use), but digging up irrelevant laboratory papers doesn't change it. The first link here is a lab study that doesn't demonstrate anything of relevance to the question: fit-tested masks, in a laboratory, where the outcome is "virus in the air" doesn't tell you if same masks, in the real world will protect against illness in people. Second link is more of the same: demonstrating that a mask can filter particles, in an ideal setting, does not tell you anything about what actually happens in the real world. For that, you need clinical evidence (which I've already shown you is weak). Medical science is filled with stories of things that work in theory, but don't work in practice. Literally every drug that failed a clinical trial (i.e. >99% of all drugs tested) worked in the lab. You must do controlled tests on real people to see what really works. > the first is in the respected Journal of Infectious Diseases. It passed peer review. Journal of Infectious Diseases is actually not a great journal, and "peer review" is not a magical talisman that prevents publication of bad research. See also: citing the WHO, the CDC, etc., when you've been shown that the evidence for the recommendations they're making is not robust.

azakai 4y ago

Why are you certain such studies have not been done? Plenty of things have been published in that space. For example, https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/226/2/199/6582941 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/226/2/199/6582941 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.654317/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.65431... You might respond with some specific skepticism about some particular detail in either study. But e.g. the first is in the respected Journal of Infectious Diseases. It passed peer review. And plenty of other studies exist. The bigger picture here is that every major health agency in the world recommends good masks such as N95s, as mentioned earlier. That is the standard for relevant healthcare workers for good reason. The experts in those agencies have looked at the studies and made that conclusion, which is the general consensus in the healthcare field. There is some chance all the experts are wrong on this. That happens sometimes. But it's rare.

timr 4y ago
I gave you a comprehensive review of all literature related to masks, used on people, to prevent actual illness. You don't like the conclusion of that data (there's little clinical evidence supporting their use), but digging up irrelevant laboratory papers doesn't change it. The first link here is a lab study that doesn't demonstrate anything of relevance to the question: fit-tested masks, in a laboratory, where the outcome is "virus in the air" doesn't tell you if same masks, in the real world will protect against illness in people. Second link is more of the same: demonstrating that a mask can filter particles, in an ideal setting, does not tell you anything about what actually happens in the real world. For that, you need clinical evidence (which I've already shown you is weak). Medical science is filled with stories of things that work in theory, but don't work in practice. Literally every drug that failed a clinical trial (i.e. >99% of all drugs tested) worked in the lab. You must do controlled tests on real people to see what really works. > the first is in the respected Journal of Infectious Diseases. It passed peer review. Journal of Infectious Diseases is actually not a great journal, and "peer review" is not a magical talisman that prevents publication of bad research. See also: citing the WHO, the CDC, etc., when you've been shown that the evidence for the recommendations they're making is not robust.