4 ms·

My advice is to look at studies done before 2020 when it became political. My research suggests that, while masks probably do something, it's very hard to measu

by sfblah 2y ago

My advice is to look at studies done before 2020 when it became political. My research suggests that, while masks probably do something, it's very hard to measure the exact impacts. The prevailing wisdom before 2020 was that masking the public for viruses didn't do anything. For medical professionals, very strict masking protocols were needed to get any assurance of safety.

dailykoder 2y ago
>For medical professionals, very strict masking protocols were needed to get any assurance of safety. That's a very good point. As I understood it, even if we ignore the people that don't cover their nose, you have to be very careful when putting one on, to get the desired protection. Most people just don't care enough about it. Also use them to often, yada yada yada...
g-b-r 2y ago
The prevailing wisdom before 2020 was that almost no virus was airborne; and you needed to assume new ones weren't, lest all hell break loose. That's how we got the pandemic.
wrp 2y ago
> look at studies done before 2020 when it became political. Good advice and easy to do. Just use your favorite source to find review articles. You don't need to read many, as conclusions were quite uniform.
- kmacleod 2y ago
  When I did the pre-2020 deep-dive I found the studies to be uniformly about the mechanics of the mask (hole size and particle size) and therefore the conclusions uniform on that front. It was only after 2020 that any studies were done on effectiveness in use. The results are a lot more positive there. However, it was still difficult to do controlled studies so the results aren't as strong as one would like.
  - wrp 2y ago
    A big problem with all the discussion about masks is that there are at least three different types of study, and people tend to mix the conclusions. 1. Epidemiological: "Town A mandated masks and town B didn't. Was there any difference in reported rate of pathogen spread?" Reviews over the past century of epidemic responses indicated no overall benefit. 2. Clinical: "In a controlled situation, was there a difference in rate of pathogen spread between the mask-user group and the non-mask group?" There was soft support for some benefit in non-sterile, close-contact environments. 3. Laboratory: "On a laboratory bench, what degree of pathogen capture was achieved by the mask apparatus?" These studies assume that performance on the bench correlates to performance in the field. The N95 mask is a case in point. On the bench, it performs better, but reviews of clinical studies didn't find a strong effect in field use.

by sfblah 2y ago

dailykoder 2y ago

>For medical professionals, very strict masking protocols were needed to get any assurance of safety. That's a very good point. As I understood it, even if we ignore the people that don't cover their nose, you have to be very careful when putting one on, to get the desired protection. Most people just don't care enough about it. Also use them to often, yada yada yada...

g-b-r 2y ago

The prevailing wisdom before 2020 was that almost no virus was airborne; and you needed to assume new ones weren't, lest all hell break loose. That's how we got the pandemic.

wrp 2y ago

> look at studies done before 2020 when it became political. Good advice and easy to do. Just use your favorite source to find review articles. You don't need to read many, as conclusions were quite uniform.

kmacleod 2y ago
When I did the pre-2020 deep-dive I found the studies to be uniformly about the mechanics of the mask (hole size and particle size) and therefore the conclusions uniform on that front. It was only after 2020 that any studies were done on effectiveness in use. The results are a lot more positive there. However, it was still difficult to do controlled studies so the results aren't as strong as one would like.
- wrp 2y ago
  A big problem with all the discussion about masks is that there are at least three different types of study, and people tend to mix the conclusions. 1. Epidemiological: "Town A mandated masks and town B didn't. Was there any difference in reported rate of pathogen spread?" Reviews over the past century of epidemic responses indicated no overall benefit. 2. Clinical: "In a controlled situation, was there a difference in rate of pathogen spread between the mask-user group and the non-mask group?" There was soft support for some benefit in non-sterile, close-contact environments. 3. Laboratory: "On a laboratory bench, what degree of pathogen capture was achieved by the mask apparatus?" These studies assume that performance on the bench correlates to performance in the field. The N95 mask is a case in point. On the bench, it performs better, but reviews of clinical studies didn't find a strong effect in field use.