5 ms·

I Won’t Talk to ‘Fact Checkers’ About Our Mask Study

8 points by nhchris 4y ago

nhchris 4y ago
Written by a co-author of a recent Cochrane study (considered the highest bar in quality for medical studies)
- aquarium87 4y ago
  I was not aware this was considered the "highest bar". Can you elaborate? I've seen so much vitriol against it, it's hard to square your statement and the amount of denialism about its results.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)#Recept...
  - onecommentman 4y ago
    Active for 30 years specifically dedicated to reviewing medical issues, members in 190 countries https://www.cochrane.org/about-us https://www.cochrane.org/about-us 20 years of journal volumes to be found in their database of systematic reviews of medical practices, several thousand articles by my superficial count https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/table-of-contents?volume=2023&issue=2 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/table-of-contents?volum... As of 2019, their impact factor is 7.890, 10th among all top medical journals (out of 165), 5 year impact factor of 7.974. Even a non-medical like me have heard of them described as the premier journal for medical reviews, and a role model for other disciplines looking to reproduce the same success in reviewing research findings around a particular topic. https://www.cochrane.org/news/2019-journal-impact-factor-cochrane-database-systematic-reviews-7890 https://www.cochrane.org/news/2019-journal-impact-factor-coc... Does the country you’re posting from block access to search engines? This took less than 3 minutes of search. If you can’t web search because of censorship, how can you post on HN? And if you only have 11 karma, as it seems from your username, why aren’t you showing up as a green font? I’m puzzled, dang.
newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
bediger4000 4y ago
This seems a bit short sighted. The paper takes a position that was generally advocated for by anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and Qanons. Of course people are going to want to check things. In the real world you've got to work to overcome previously held positions.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > In the real world you've got to work to overcome previously held positions. That work is conducting rigorous studies and meta-analyses, not talking to dishonest journalists whose goal is to twist the findings, instead of report them honestly. The article addresses this, with the example of Tamiflu, where layers of "fact checking" were abused to inflate its effectiveness and keep spending government funds on it. Talking to spin-doctors just gives them ammo. If they can't twist your words, they just ignore them. There is no up-side.
  - croes 4y ago
    So you fall for his spin of dishonest fact checkers. The study has such doesn't say masks don't work because it can't differ between masks are useless or people can't use them properly or all the time neeeded.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The paper doesn't seem to take a particularly anti-vaxxer position. This guy, who is the lead author, seems to be really leaning into it though, using words like "feardemic". The plain language summary in the actual report: > We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed. > Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses. More detail: > The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security (Ammann 2022; Brosseau 2020; Byambasuren 2021; Canini 2010; Cassell 2006; Coroiu 2021; MacIntyre 2015; Rengasamy 2010; Zamora 2006).

8 points by nhchris 4y ago

nhchris 4y ago

Written by a co-author of a recent Cochrane study (considered the highest bar in quality for medical studies)

aquarium87 4y ago
I was not aware this was considered the "highest bar". Can you elaborate? I've seen so much vitriol against it, it's hard to square your statement and the amount of denialism about its results.
- nhchris 4y ago
  A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation)#Recept...
- onecommentman 4y ago
  Active for 30 years specifically dedicated to reviewing medical issues, members in 190 countries https://www.cochrane.org/about-us https://www.cochrane.org/about-us 20 years of journal volumes to be found in their database of systematic reviews of medical practices, several thousand articles by my superficial count https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/table-of-contents?volume=2023&issue=2 https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/table-of-contents?volum... As of 2019, their impact factor is 7.890, 10th among all top medical journals (out of 165), 5 year impact factor of 7.974. Even a non-medical like me have heard of them described as the premier journal for medical reviews, and a role model for other disciplines looking to reproduce the same success in reviewing research findings around a particular topic. https://www.cochrane.org/news/2019-journal-impact-factor-cochrane-database-systematic-reviews-7890 https://www.cochrane.org/news/2019-journal-impact-factor-coc... Does the country you’re posting from block access to search engines? This took less than 3 minutes of search. If you can’t web search because of censorship, how can you post on HN? And if you only have 11 karma, as it seems from your username, why aren’t you showing up as a green font? I’m puzzled, dang.

newaccount2021 4y ago

[dead]

bediger4000 4y ago

This seems a bit short sighted. The paper takes a position that was generally advocated for by anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and Qanons. Of course people are going to want to check things. In the real world you've got to work to overcome previously held positions.

nhchris 4y ago
> In the real world you've got to work to overcome previously held positions. That work is conducting rigorous studies and meta-analyses, not talking to dishonest journalists whose goal is to twist the findings, instead of report them honestly. The article addresses this, with the example of Tamiflu, where layers of "fact checking" were abused to inflate its effectiveness and keep spending government funds on it. Talking to spin-doctors just gives them ammo. If they can't twist your words, they just ignore them. There is no up-side.
- croes 4y ago
  So you fall for his spin of dishonest fact checkers. The study has such doesn't say masks don't work because it can't differ between masks are useless or people can't use them properly or all the time neeeded.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The paper doesn't seem to take a particularly anti-vaxxer position. This guy, who is the lead author, seems to be really leaning into it though, using words like "feardemic". The plain language summary in the actual report: > We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed. > Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses. More detail: > The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security (Ammann 2022; Brosseau 2020; Byambasuren 2021; Canini 2010; Cassell 2006; Coroiu 2021; MacIntyre 2015; Rengasamy 2010; Zamora 2006).