3 ms·

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 goin

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).
- aquarium87 4y ago
  He had his work delayed 7 months due to politics, and then ignored while watching the world go mad, claiming to be following the science, when it was all a "timeline" trick. I think it's important to understand his story as an irreproachable scientist that, it appears, has spent 16 years studying 72 studies, and whose expertise should have been #1 in the world (or high up). Instead, he had to give up on "science communication" because the media was purposefully angling for a narrative, and coming to the opposite conclusions after talking to him, and using his name as a veneer of legitimacy. A really good case study in disinformation could be made out of this story.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The weird thing is, if he thinks a) this a feardemic, b) masks probably don't help then combining those two he should be reasonably happy. People go out into the world wearing masks and washing their hands and it maybe helps, maybe doesn't. How does announcing "masks don't help protect you from COVID (as far as we can prove)" help to reduce fear of COVID?

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).

aquarium87 4y ago
He had his work delayed 7 months due to politics, and then ignored while watching the world go mad, claiming to be following the science, when it was all a "timeline" trick. I think it's important to understand his story as an irreproachable scientist that, it appears, has spent 16 years studying 72 studies, and whose expertise should have been #1 in the world (or high up). Instead, he had to give up on "science communication" because the media was purposefully angling for a narrative, and coming to the opposite conclusions after talking to him, and using his name as a veneer of legitimacy. A really good case study in disinformation could be made out of this story.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The weird thing is, if he thinks a) this a feardemic, b) masks probably don't help then combining those two he should be reasonably happy. People go out into the world wearing masks and washing their hands and it maybe helps, maybe doesn't. How does announcing "masks don't help protect you from COVID (as far as we can prove)" help to reduce fear of COVID?