5 ms·

One of my pet peeves is the continued use of ambiguous phrases like "masks work" or "masks help" when there are effectively two different mechanisms (inhalation

by u32480932048 3y ago

One of my pet peeves is the continued use of ambiguous phrases like "masks work" or "masks help" when there are effectively two different mechanisms (inhalation/exhalation). I suspect the prolonged mass confusion over such an elementary topic will be one for the Science Communicator books.

titzer 3y ago
IMHO the issue is that masks work but masking as a social phenomenon can suffer a number of problems, like non-compliance, partial compliance, poor fit, children, misuse, reuse, damaged masks, cloth masks, needing to eat, and all kinds of factors. So scientific experiments in a controlled setting with one or two people show that masks work as a mechanism, but getting everyone to go along with and practice good masking etiquette might not work so well. So population studies show masks working much worse than their mechanism would suggest they can. Especially when there is intentional non-compliance and protests motivated by culture war battles. Arguing with people who just spout "masks don't work" and then intentionally are non-compliant (and encourage others to) is like arguing with motivated idiots. No, masks work, period. Masking only works if people freaking do it. edit: spelling
- agos 3y ago
  on the flip side, so much of the Covid discourse was about these fabled policies which would do great things (but required 100% compliance), followed by indignation/panic and hysteria/angry mobs when it turned out that 100% compliance is hard.
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    We won't need 100% effectiveness and 100% compliance. If they only work at 10% effectiveness, then over a network of thousands, they will measurably save lives. Studies have shown they work (such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483277/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483277/), despite the 'ah, yes but only [insert unsupported caveat here]' of some.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 3y ago
  > No, mask work, period. ...on a mannequin, in a lab, or when used as a filter between two hamster cages. Perhaps. But there have now been plenty of negative studies in hospitals, which really starts to beg the question: if you can't get effective compliance in a hospital, where are you going to get it? Just to be clear, I was with you right up until the part I quoted. It's fine to say that mechanistic studies show something to be true, but it's totally wrong to leap to the conclusion that these mean anything. If I tell you that you're 100% certain to lose weight if you stop eating, that's True ("Starving works. Period."), but it's not meaningful. Every failed drug ever tested worked in a laboratory before it went to clinical trials.
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    Except masks do work. Here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/ - "We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/ - "Evidence suggests that the potential benefits of wearing masks likely outweigh the potential harms when SARS-CoV-2 is spreading in a community". Mentions the network effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/ - "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection" https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... "...on a mannequin, in a lab, or when used as a filter between two hamster cages. Perhaps." No, you are coping hard. The studies above are not done by idiots. "if you can't get effective compliance in a hospital, where are you going to get it?" Nice pivot, but the subject is whether they work, which they do. Compliance is a different question. That's like arguing that condom effectiveness is low when people don't use them properly. And because the figure is low, let's just conclude condoms are ineffective so people should stop using them altogether. "Every failed drug ever tested worked in a laboratory before it went to clinical trials." And some actually worked in trials. Your job is to explain which is the better analogy. That unanticipated practical considerations exist does not invalidate every conclusion you dislike. However, even if masks work slightly, or not at all, even if there are dozens of studies saying so, there is enough conjecture to warrant wearing them anyway just in case. If two equally qualified mechanics disagree on whether to change your brakes, you change your damn brakes. If you don't that's stupid. If you don't and then drive a busload of people, that's criminal. But masks do work, and they're cheap and barely an inconvenience. The problem is everyone thinks they're smarter than an epidemiologist. Thanks Internet.
Sporktacular 3y ago
If masks only work one way and one infected person is in a train car with 10 uninfected people, then they all get protection if they all wear masks.

titzer 3y ago

IMHO the issue is that masks work but masking as a social phenomenon can suffer a number of problems, like non-compliance, partial compliance, poor fit, children, misuse, reuse, damaged masks, cloth masks, needing to eat, and all kinds of factors. So scientific experiments in a controlled setting with one or two people show that masks work as a mechanism, but getting everyone to go along with and practice good masking etiquette might not work so well. So population studies show masks working much worse than their mechanism would suggest they can. Especially when there is intentional non-compliance and protests motivated by culture war battles. Arguing with people who just spout "masks don't work" and then intentionally are non-compliant (and encourage others to) is like arguing with motivated idiots. No, masks work, period. Masking only works if people freaking do it. edit: spelling

agos 3y ago
on the flip side, so much of the Covid discourse was about these fabled policies which would do great things (but required 100% compliance), followed by indignation/panic and hysteria/angry mobs when it turned out that 100% compliance is hard.
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  We won't need 100% effectiveness and 100% compliance. If they only work at 10% effectiveness, then over a network of thousands, they will measurably save lives. Studies have shown they work (such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483277/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483277/), despite the 'ah, yes but only [insert unsupported caveat here]' of some.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
timr 3y ago
> No, mask work, period. ...on a mannequin, in a lab, or when used as a filter between two hamster cages. Perhaps. But there have now been plenty of negative studies in hospitals, which really starts to beg the question: if you can't get effective compliance in a hospital, where are you going to get it? Just to be clear, I was with you right up until the part I quoted. It's fine to say that mechanistic studies show something to be true, but it's totally wrong to leap to the conclusion that these mean anything. If I tell you that you're 100% certain to lose weight if you stop eating, that's True ("Starving works. Period."), but it's not meaningful. Every failed drug ever tested worked in a laboratory before it went to clinical trials.
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  Except masks do work. Here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/ - "We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33370173/ - "Evidence suggests that the potential benefits of wearing masks likely outweigh the potential harms when SARS-CoV-2 is spreading in a community". Mentions the network effect. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/ - "Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection" https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... "...on a mannequin, in a lab, or when used as a filter between two hamster cages. Perhaps." No, you are coping hard. The studies above are not done by idiots. "if you can't get effective compliance in a hospital, where are you going to get it?" Nice pivot, but the subject is whether they work, which they do. Compliance is a different question. That's like arguing that condom effectiveness is low when people don't use them properly. And because the figure is low, let's just conclude condoms are ineffective so people should stop using them altogether. "Every failed drug ever tested worked in a laboratory before it went to clinical trials." And some actually worked in trials. Your job is to explain which is the better analogy. That unanticipated practical considerations exist does not invalidate every conclusion you dislike. However, even if masks work slightly, or not at all, even if there are dozens of studies saying so, there is enough conjecture to warrant wearing them anyway just in case. If two equally qualified mechanics disagree on whether to change your brakes, you change your damn brakes. If you don't that's stupid. If you don't and then drive a busload of people, that's criminal. But masks do work, and they're cheap and barely an inconvenience. The problem is everyone thinks they're smarter than an epidemiologist. Thanks Internet.

Sporktacular 3y ago

If masks only work one way and one infected person is in a train car with 10 uninfected people, then they all get protection if they all wear masks.