5 ms·

> that was a misinterpretation of the review in the Covid-skeptic sphere. No, it wasn't. You should read the paper itself, instead of relying on (sadly) biased

• autoexec 3y ago
  It also literally says "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."
  • timr 3y ago
    It does, and that's true, but that doesn't contradict what OP wrote. They found only mid-to-low quality evidence supporting the use of masks to prevent ILI. That evidence, for everything but the question of "n95 vs. other", showed an effect size statistically indistinguishable from zero. You're essentially saying that the error bars on that effect size are big. They are. But they're still centered on zero.
    • autoexec 3y ago
      The evidence they had was of such low quality that no solid conclusions could be made from it. What they found in the research may not reflect reality. They are explicit about this and stress the need for better research. > "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect...There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs." They admit that they were unclear about it and later were even more explicit. "Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses." The review is not able to "address the question" let alone conclude anything about the impact of mask wearing. The review is inconclusive.
      • timr 3y ago
        > The evidence they had was of such low quality that no solid conclusions could be made from it. OK, fine. If I grant this (I don't, but let's run with it...), it means the following is also true: we mandated something based on such low-quality evidence that no solid conclusions could be made from it.
• classichasclass 3y ago
  From the editorial: "It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses." Whether you think the editorial was them caving or not, they also issued it under their own name with the same weight as their other reviews, so they must have thought enough of it to do so. Given that there's ample laboratory evidence of the filtering capacity of a good N95 or even a KN95 mask, and having worked with an N95 respirator in tuberculosis control settings for 17 years and never converted my TB test, I think I'll stick with the mask in future and I have no hesitation recommending winter masking to others who believe they are at risk of complications. I've liked not being sick for the last three years.
  • LorenPechtel 3y ago
    Yup, we lead lives where it's simply not that big an issue to protect ourselves. While I think my chance of dying from getting it would be very low the issue of long term damage is another matter--it certainly looks to me like it damages everybody, just not always to the point they notice. The damage is probably cumulative.
  • timr 3y ago
    > they also issued it under their own name with the same weight as their other reviews, so they must have thought enough of it to do so. Data is data. Editorials are editorials. The fact that they're published on the same website doesn't change the data. If the Higgs boson was published in the same issue of Physics Letters B as another letter that claimed uncertainty of the result, would you treat them with equal weight? > and having worked with an N95 respirator in tuberculosis control settings for 17 years and never converted my TB test I mean...that's fine? Nobody is telling you what to believe or do. Most of what we do comes without evidence. But let's be slightly rigorous thinkers for a moment: there's a fairly obvious difference between a fit-tested n95 mask in a laboratory setting, where there are lots of other interventions happening at the same time (negative pressure labs, hoods, etc.), and putting on a loose surgical mask on a bus. We should be able to talk about that rationally, and not resort to superstition. > I've liked not being sick for the last three years. I haven't worn masks and I haven't gotten sick either. Other than Covid -- which I got when we were all wearing masks. "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
• LorenPechtel 3y ago
  The basic problem is whether the data says masks don't work, or says that people aren't consistent enough in wearing masks. I've seen it directly--one woman putting on a mask when I approached. The thing is she had been hiking near the back of the pack in a group that got together for the hike. She was at a far higher risk from being downwind of her group (this was not a family bubble) than of me being off to the side. I can basically guarantee nobody there was experiencing any appreciable symptoms (10,000' up, miles from the cars--not something you're doing with any sort of respiratory infection) but most Covid spread is presymptomatic. A solo hiker masking when someone approaches makes sense (and is what I did pre-vaccine), but not masking with your group but masking for a stranger? That's merely an illusion of safety and why masks "don't work". There's also the problem that the Cochrane data included mostly studies of things other than Covid--when you go over their own data only looking at Covid you do see some benefit. Note, also, the pooling of masks and respirators--we already know masks do little against the Omicron variants. Respirators or don't bother. Cochrane messed up badly in this case by looking at the wrong thing. I'm reminded of the BMJ study showing zero safety benefit from parachutes when jumping from an airplane.
  • anonymous344 3y ago
    Yes, the masks didn't work. Now everybody should know it. First of all, they were using paper mouth shields or adidas branded useless cloths, not masks. But even the dumb fcks using real n95 mask, i see people everywhere touching the mask from outside (where the viruses should be stopped if the mask works) and then touching everything else. And when coughing opening the mask and coughing inside the palm...
  • junofan 3y ago
    I would like to point out what “makes sense” to people rarely reflects the underlying fluid dynamics at the relevant scales. Couple that with a poor understanding of just how many particles one infected person emits and it’s clear masks as worn are very ineffective for the vast majority of people.