5 ms·

Sure, but on the other other hand, it might be difficult to expect someone who really believes in masks to try to prove they don't work. Or, to publish their da

Sure, but on the other other hand, it might be difficult to expect someone who really believes in masks to try to prove they don't work. Or, to publish their data if they find that masks don't work(because they believe they have some flaw in their logic, or they think there are social benefits to mask wearing not covered in their study, etc).

marcosdumay 2y ago
The people that believe in masks should be the ones testing if they work. The situation you are describing is a messed-up environment that puts politics above science. The people that don't believe masks work should be busy testing something they believe in.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Believing masks to be slightly effective at preventing airborne illnesses seems like a pretty common sense default viewpoint though. No barrier provides no benefit, a completely impermeable barrier like wearing a fish tank on your head would provide 100% benefit. So it makes sense that a partially permeable barrier would provide some benefit.
  - leptons 2y ago
    Most anti-maskers say "masks don't work" without trying to understand that masks are not a 100% solution, and nothing in life is. But even if a mask is 50% effective (not a scientifically proven number, just an example), I'll take that mitigation over 0% of not wearing a mask (not a random number, wearing no mask actually provides no protection at all), every single time.
    - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
      But surely the amount matters. What if it’s only 1% better?
      - leptons 2y ago
        [flagged]
- burningChrome 2y ago
  >> The situation you are describing is a messed-up environment that puts politics above science. This has been going on for a while and just came into sharp focus during the pandemic. Its horrifying to think science is now so politically based that any study that contradicts what the gov is telling you is somehow suppressed because they know better? Do you remember when the Canadian Health Minister said people should ignore any information that isn't coming directly from the government? Our dystopian future arrived during the pandemic and science went from using a rigorous established methodology to allowing the government to tell us that science is now decided as a popularity contest like a survey. "99% of doctors recommend the vaccine so you should trust "the science" and get it or you're going to kill your grandma!"
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > Do you remember when the Canadian Health Minister said people should ignore any information that isn't coming directly from the government? On that environment, with several groups spreading lies everywhere, and with a public health issue that couldn't possibly turn into a political hot topic, that statement made a lot of sense. That is not suppression of scientific speech. (Suppression of scientific speed happened a lot less than popular press manipulation. Still happened, though.) Personally, I am much more afraid about how people managed to turn covid into a political hot topic.
    - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
      There was suppression of speech as well. For example, doctors were fired for publicly stating facts backed by research that turned iut to be more accurate than the offivial narrative.
  - adamomada 2y ago
    I remember how in Ontario the actual science, pardon me, the Science Advisory Table, was some meeting that absolutely could not be public and Science™ only occurred in the back room secret meetings, with the Premier coming out once in a while to give updates, telephone-game style
- kukkeliskuu 2y ago
  Why? You think only people who are negative towards a specific issue may have bias? Or that it is impossible that they are negative based on some experience or hunch or non-conclusive indication, rather than political bias? Do tou understand that being negative vs. positive is just about framing the question?
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    When was the last time you got out to spend months of your life and of the people around you intent on trying something that you expected not to work?
    - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
      Science advances by both negative and positive results. So for a researcher, negative results are also “expected to work”. Furthermore, scientific ideal is that researchers are neutral towards the results. Does not always happen, of course.

marcosdumay 2y ago

The people that believe in masks should be the ones testing if they work. The situation you are describing is a messed-up environment that puts politics above science. The people that don't believe masks work should be busy testing something they believe in.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
Believing masks to be slightly effective at preventing airborne illnesses seems like a pretty common sense default viewpoint though. No barrier provides no benefit, a completely impermeable barrier like wearing a fish tank on your head would provide 100% benefit. So it makes sense that a partially permeable barrier would provide some benefit.
- leptons 2y ago
  Most anti-maskers say "masks don't work" without trying to understand that masks are not a 100% solution, and nothing in life is. But even if a mask is 50% effective (not a scientifically proven number, just an example), I'll take that mitigation over 0% of not wearing a mask (not a random number, wearing no mask actually provides no protection at all), every single time.
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    But surely the amount matters. What if it’s only 1% better?
    - leptons 2y ago
      [flagged]
burningChrome 2y ago
>> The situation you are describing is a messed-up environment that puts politics above science. This has been going on for a while and just came into sharp focus during the pandemic. Its horrifying to think science is now so politically based that any study that contradicts what the gov is telling you is somehow suppressed because they know better? Do you remember when the Canadian Health Minister said people should ignore any information that isn't coming directly from the government? Our dystopian future arrived during the pandemic and science went from using a rigorous established methodology to allowing the government to tell us that science is now decided as a popularity contest like a survey. "99% of doctors recommend the vaccine so you should trust "the science" and get it or you're going to kill your grandma!"
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > Do you remember when the Canadian Health Minister said people should ignore any information that isn't coming directly from the government? On that environment, with several groups spreading lies everywhere, and with a public health issue that couldn't possibly turn into a political hot topic, that statement made a lot of sense. That is not suppression of scientific speech. (Suppression of scientific speed happened a lot less than popular press manipulation. Still happened, though.) Personally, I am much more afraid about how people managed to turn covid into a political hot topic.
  - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
    There was suppression of speech as well. For example, doctors were fired for publicly stating facts backed by research that turned iut to be more accurate than the offivial narrative.
- adamomada 2y ago
  I remember how in Ontario the actual science, pardon me, the Science Advisory Table, was some meeting that absolutely could not be public and Science™ only occurred in the back room secret meetings, with the Premier coming out once in a while to give updates, telephone-game style
kukkeliskuu 2y ago
Why? You think only people who are negative towards a specific issue may have bias? Or that it is impossible that they are negative based on some experience or hunch or non-conclusive indication, rather than political bias? Do tou understand that being negative vs. positive is just about framing the question?
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  When was the last time you got out to spend months of your life and of the people around you intent on trying something that you expected not to work?
  - kukkeliskuu 2y ago
    Science advances by both negative and positive results. So for a researcher, negative results are also “expected to work”. Furthermore, scientific ideal is that researchers are neutral towards the results. Does not always happen, of course.