4 ms·

> This is the event that still required everyone to wear a mask late 2022 only after Twitch was guilted into it. Oh no, they bowed to people whose livelihoods

> This is the event that still required everyone to wear a mask late 2022 only after Twitch was guilted into it. Oh no, they bowed to people whose livelihoods depend on staying healthy and realized that masks actually do help when everyone wears them.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Hell, I kinda wish we'd kept it up everywhere. Not having anyone in my house get so much as the flu for about 2.5 years was kinda awesome. I think we had a single mild cold go through our house, that entire time.
misssocrates 4y ago
How so? There's no evidence for that with respect to respiratory viruses. > Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
- notbuyingit 4y ago
  And googling the key line there reveals a full page of Google results with articles explaining how both the initial assumptions and methodology was flawed. It was surprising even to me how easy it was to find rebuttals. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spreading-covid-despite-review-saying-they-dont https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spre... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochra... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/16/cochrane-study-masks-covid-pandemic/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/16/cochrane-... At least, unlike the other person in this thread, you didn't do the gaslighty thing of acting like 'we all know' masks don't work.
  - timr 4y ago
    Speaking as someone who actually has an advanced degree in science and understands how to read papers and interpret medical evidence (unlike Tufecki, who has literally zero scientific training or understanding of statistics) has read ~every paper on masks ever published, the "rebuttals" there are nonsense. The Cochrane review was not incorrect; it was not retracted. The "apology from Cochrane" was not about the paper itself, and they didn't say that the conclusions were wrong. The NY Times and the Washington Post and Gavi are just wrong, and they're lying. Full stop. By literally the same standards of evidence they are using ("the lower bound of the confidence interval crosses 1.0, so we can't exclude the possibility of benefit"), Ivermectin and HCQ "work" against Covid. So you either accept both claims, or you reject both. We have two political teams, each advancing separate-but-equal forms of pseudo-sciencey twaddle, and neither side is willing to admit that the actual data doesn't back their opinions: https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-mask-fiasco https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-mask-fiasco
    - notbuyingit 4y ago
      Gonna go with "wearing a mask to stop particulate spread" is not separate but equal from taking horse dewormer. (And it's not an exaggeration to characterize it as such when they're literally buying drugs from farm suplly stores and injecting amounts meant for livestock over the course of a few days.) Similarly, I don't know anyone who has died from wearing a mask. This is not even to mention the numerous other studies, experiments, and demsonstartsions of all sorts of respiratory protective gear that show effectiveness against particulates smaller even than COVID-19.
      - timr 4y ago
        Oh, stop. Ivermectin is a human drug. The fact that you're repeating this line shows that you're not commenting in good faith. Quite literally, the evidence for both is equally good (or bad). Citing mechanistic or laboratory studies is absurd, when we have actual RCTs.
        4y ago
bacchusracine 4y ago
>masks actually do help when everyone wears them. Could I get a citation for this please? Just about every source I've seen has since admitted that masks did absolutely nothing for the purposes for which they were advised to be used.
- hellomyguys 4y ago
  When you dig into those studies, they aren't that great either fwiw.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Hell, I kinda wish we'd kept it up everywhere. Not having anyone in my house get so much as the flu for about 2.5 years was kinda awesome. I think we had a single mild cold go through our house, that entire time.

misssocrates 4y ago

How so? There's no evidence for that with respect to respiratory viruses. > Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

notbuyingit 4y ago
And googling the key line there reveals a full page of Google results with articles explaining how both the initial assumptions and methodology was flawed. It was surprising even to me how easy it was to find rebuttals. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spreading-covid-despite-review-saying-they-dont https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/yes-masks-reduce-risk-spre... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochra... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/16/cochrane-study-masks-covid-pandemic/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/16/cochrane-... At least, unlike the other person in this thread, you didn't do the gaslighty thing of acting like 'we all know' masks don't work.
- timr 4y ago
  Speaking as someone who actually has an advanced degree in science and understands how to read papers and interpret medical evidence (unlike Tufecki, who has literally zero scientific training or understanding of statistics) has read ~every paper on masks ever published, the "rebuttals" there are nonsense. The Cochrane review was not incorrect; it was not retracted. The "apology from Cochrane" was not about the paper itself, and they didn't say that the conclusions were wrong. The NY Times and the Washington Post and Gavi are just wrong, and they're lying. Full stop. By literally the same standards of evidence they are using ("the lower bound of the confidence interval crosses 1.0, so we can't exclude the possibility of benefit"), Ivermectin and HCQ "work" against Covid. So you either accept both claims, or you reject both. We have two political teams, each advancing separate-but-equal forms of pseudo-sciencey twaddle, and neither side is willing to admit that the actual data doesn't back their opinions: https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-mask-fiasco https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/the-cochrane-mask-fiasco
  - notbuyingit 4y ago
    Gonna go with "wearing a mask to stop particulate spread" is not separate but equal from taking horse dewormer. (And it's not an exaggeration to characterize it as such when they're literally buying drugs from farm suplly stores and injecting amounts meant for livestock over the course of a few days.) Similarly, I don't know anyone who has died from wearing a mask. This is not even to mention the numerous other studies, experiments, and demsonstartsions of all sorts of respiratory protective gear that show effectiveness against particulates smaller even than COVID-19.
    - timr 4y ago
      Oh, stop. Ivermectin is a human drug. The fact that you're repeating this line shows that you're not commenting in good faith. Quite literally, the evidence for both is equally good (or bad). Citing mechanistic or laboratory studies is absurd, when we have actual RCTs.
      - 4y ago

bacchusracine 4y ago

>masks actually do help when everyone wears them. Could I get a citation for this please? Just about every source I've seen has since admitted that masks did absolutely nothing for the purposes for which they were advised to be used.

hellomyguys 4y ago
When you dig into those studies, they aren't that great either fwiw.