4 ms·

I agree that the Cochrane review is better evidence of "if you don't wear/use a mask properly, it won't work," rather than "masks don't work." (This is one of t

I agree that the Cochrane review is better evidence of "if you don't wear/use a mask properly, it won't work," rather than "masks don't work." (This is one of the reasons I'm against mask mandates, btw.) I'm invested in this only because, due to my health condition, I don't want to get covid. As far as I'm aware, the evidence says that so long as I properly wear an N95 (so I'm not taking my mask off to scratch my nose, have passed a fit test, etc.), I will significantly reduce my risk of getting covid.

gadders 3y ago
But rather than "if you don't wear/use a mask properly, it won't work", I'd more restate it as "for a given population size, enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease". I also think that if you, as an individual, are especially diligent it may well lower your personal chances of catching COVID. And given your health conditions, I really hope that is the case for you. But I think we are broadly in agreement.
- jMyles 3y ago
  > I'd more restate it as "for a given population size, enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease". ...but this is even less conservative than the review summary, which was inexplicably panned. The clause "enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease" is part of the consideration that goes into "community transmission" (or the phrase "in the community", which is sometimes used in formal publications as an abstraction for real-world compliance levels) and is distinct from "individual transmission". The sentence in question is: "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;" [0] ...it's hard to imagine how this extremely sober (and factually proper) extrapolation of the data has caused such a kerfuffle. Is it any wonder that the people who have been studying this topic since before it was cool are puzzled? 0: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/ edit: my apologies - I just read that you addressed this elsewhere in the thread. It seems that we are in agreement (and I just don't think there is a reasonable alternative assessment for any numerate / literate reading of the data.)

gadders 3y ago

But rather than "if you don't wear/use a mask properly, it won't work", I'd more restate it as "for a given population size, enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease". I also think that if you, as an individual, are especially diligent it may well lower your personal chances of catching COVID. And given your health conditions, I really hope that is the case for you. But I think we are broadly in agreement.

jMyles 3y ago
> I'd more restate it as "for a given population size, enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease". ...but this is even less conservative than the review summary, which was inexplicably panned. The clause "enough people would mess up that making everyone wear one would not slow the spread of the disease" is part of the consideration that goes into "community transmission" (or the phrase "in the community", which is sometimes used in formal publications as an abstraction for real-world compliance levels) and is distinct from "individual transmission". The sentence in question is: "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;" [0] ...it's hard to imagine how this extremely sober (and factually proper) extrapolation of the data has caused such a kerfuffle. Is it any wonder that the people who have been studying this topic since before it was cool are puzzled? 0: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36715243/ edit: my apologies - I just read that you addressed this elsewhere in the thread. It seems that we are in agreement (and I just don't think there is a reasonable alternative assessment for any numerate / literate reading of the data.)