37 ms·

You can say these meta-studies means masks and hand washing don't help for large populations and you're right. But it's not because masks and handwashing don't

You can say these meta-studies means masks and hand washing don't help for large populations and you're right. But it's not because masks and handwashing don't work. It's because people on average are too stupid or otherwise cranky to wear them properly (ie, fit and sealed) and consistently. It's not hard to wear a sealed N95 consistently and wash your hands when you come home. But almost no one will do this for years long time spans. That's what these meta-studies of populations capture: human laziness and stupidity.

blindriver 4y ago
The only real way to judge this is by measuring experts, ie. hospital staff. They are well trained and you can expect consistent results. Any studies that employ the population at large is going to devolve to nothingness because they won't be consistent and eventually over long periods of time, they will slip up and given how contagious COVID is, they will get infected. Then people can turn to the study and say "SEE! THEY DON'T WORK!" If the study is focusing on the question "Does it make sense to tell the general public to wash and wear a mask?" I think that's a different question than whether or not masks and hand washing protect people.
- taeric 4y ago
  Troubling here, I don't know a single medical staffer that did not get covid. So... I'm not sure this would give different results. This is dangerously close to the arguments that you can write safe C code. Logically, that is perfectly true. Empirically, it is a non-sequitur.
  - blindriver 4y ago
    If even experts can't avoid getting COVID, it means that regardless of how effective masks are, it's impossible to avoid COVID over a long time period. So the effectiveness of masks is moot, because the difficulty in its perfect use is too high.
    - taeric 4y ago
      I wouldn't take it quite that far. Given enough time behind the wheel, everyone will crash a car, after all. Doesn't mean we can't take measures that greatly reduce the severity and rate of crashes.
taeric 4y ago
I mean... not wrong, but how good of adherence do you think you can realistically get? Especially knowing that we are also talking about school age people, too. That is, I am very interested in how effective of an idea it is. If normal adherence can only get me a 5% reduction in risk, I can understand why I may not want to bother. If it can get me 50-80% reduction, that changes things in the other direction. As such, I'm glad there are folks doing these studies.
- superkuh 4y ago
  I know how well I can adhere. That's all that matters. That other people act like children does not change the reality that well fit N95 mask and good hand hygiene works. You should not base your decisions off meta study based on false premises (ie, most don't actually mask up properly). The article headline should be, "Can the majority of people act more responsibly re: infectious diseases than a kindergartner?" and the answer is no. And that only encourages me to keep it up.
  - taeric 4y ago
    As a criticism of this meta study, I think this is fair. As a criticism of the idea for knowing the efficacy of masks, this is shortsighted. More, comparing the majority of folks to kindergartners is... not helpful. I trust you have managed to avoid getting sick period for your entire non-kindergartner life? Do you know how much "better" you would have had to have been to do so?
    - superkuh 4y ago
      That's correct. I still have not been infected with sars-cov-2 three years into the pandemic. I haven't tested for the N protein immune reactivity in my blood or anything, but I have been extremely careful about exposure and rapid test regularly. It's the same for my local family which also mask properly with N95. It is very possible to not get infected and infect others. So yeah, I will call people who refuse to wear masks kindergarteners having hissy fits.
ccn0p 4y ago
there's theory, and there's reality. As mostly engineers here we'd love to live in theory, but that's not how the world works.

blindriver 4y ago

The only real way to judge this is by measuring experts, ie. hospital staff. They are well trained and you can expect consistent results. Any studies that employ the population at large is going to devolve to nothingness because they won't be consistent and eventually over long periods of time, they will slip up and given how contagious COVID is, they will get infected. Then people can turn to the study and say "SEE! THEY DON'T WORK!" If the study is focusing on the question "Does it make sense to tell the general public to wash and wear a mask?" I think that's a different question than whether or not masks and hand washing protect people.

taeric 4y ago
Troubling here, I don't know a single medical staffer that did not get covid. So... I'm not sure this would give different results. This is dangerously close to the arguments that you can write safe C code. Logically, that is perfectly true. Empirically, it is a non-sequitur.
- blindriver 4y ago
  If even experts can't avoid getting COVID, it means that regardless of how effective masks are, it's impossible to avoid COVID over a long time period. So the effectiveness of masks is moot, because the difficulty in its perfect use is too high.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I wouldn't take it quite that far. Given enough time behind the wheel, everyone will crash a car, after all. Doesn't mean we can't take measures that greatly reduce the severity and rate of crashes.

taeric 4y ago

I mean... not wrong, but how good of adherence do you think you can realistically get? Especially knowing that we are also talking about school age people, too. That is, I am very interested in how effective of an idea it is. If normal adherence can only get me a 5% reduction in risk, I can understand why I may not want to bother. If it can get me 50-80% reduction, that changes things in the other direction. As such, I'm glad there are folks doing these studies.

superkuh 4y ago
I know how well I can adhere. That's all that matters. That other people act like children does not change the reality that well fit N95 mask and good hand hygiene works. You should not base your decisions off meta study based on false premises (ie, most don't actually mask up properly). The article headline should be, "Can the majority of people act more responsibly re: infectious diseases than a kindergartner?" and the answer is no. And that only encourages me to keep it up.
- taeric 4y ago
  As a criticism of this meta study, I think this is fair. As a criticism of the idea for knowing the efficacy of masks, this is shortsighted. More, comparing the majority of folks to kindergartners is... not helpful. I trust you have managed to avoid getting sick period for your entire non-kindergartner life? Do you know how much "better" you would have had to have been to do so?
  - superkuh 4y ago
    That's correct. I still have not been infected with sars-cov-2 three years into the pandemic. I haven't tested for the N protein immune reactivity in my blood or anything, but I have been extremely careful about exposure and rapid test regularly. It's the same for my local family which also mask properly with N95. It is very possible to not get infected and infect others. So yeah, I will call people who refuse to wear masks kindergarteners having hissy fits.

ccn0p 4y ago

there's theory, and there's reality. As mostly engineers here we'd love to live in theory, but that's not how the world works.