Perhaps this should come as no surprise but I posted this to Facebook and it was censored--- "False information. Checked by independent fact-checkers". Thought you would want to know if you don't already, that this will happen. FYI I have now deleted my Facebook accouont, never to return.
I want to thank this writer for this piece, as the study that they site, in the Cochrane Library review, was provocative and well conducted. I would like to point out however that the original author does not make sweeping commentary or takes a definitive stance on the extant data. They provide an estimate of certainty as is customary in Cochrane meta analyses. While it is true that they say that the evidence did not report a significant change with mask wearing, it is also true that they say that the data gathered in these RCTs is highly to moderately unreliable. This should give considerable pause to anyone taking a hard stance for or against mask mandates. What is often lost in the conversation after a scientific study comes out, is the nuance of the findings - particularly those that are associative findings (correlation doesn't equal causation, right?). We need to be careful of the conclusions we make and how ardent we are about them. The efficacy of mask wearing is clearly in question due to the fatigue that occurs when people wear them (and then the decrease in proper use), as well as how long masks themselves remain effective. It is also true, however, that the author points out that "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." They also call for more rigorous studies to be conducted to draw more firm conclusions on the matter. There has to be room for some nuance in this really complicated conversation, both from those who are tired of wearing the damn masks and those who are becoming more and more at odds with the evidence against mask wearing.
And yet to this day we still have to wear masks in Los Angeles County in medical facilities. The people who work there wear them all day every day. Patients who come in are told to put one on immediately. For me, this includes the place I go to for physical therapy for my ankle, essentially a small gym where I'm led through a workout. With a mask on. It's completely ridiculous, and uncomfortable, and forced on us by the leftists who run this county.
Our local clinic in Driggs Idaho finally made them "optional". Idaho may be a red state, but this area is more purple, so i figured they'd have the mask rule for years to come. But, all the people that work there - doctors, nurses, techs, receptionists, etc. - all live in the community where they are rarely worn. I figure even they go tired of it.
First, most of the states without mask mandates had low population densities. Arguably the most critical factor in transmission was close contact with infected individuals. Lower population densities mean lower transmission rates. Travel restrictions, particularly early also reduced transmission to rural areas.
Second, the data, both from left leaning and right leaning states is likely biased. Whether the two offset each other is anyones guess.
Third, in most other parts of the world this issue was far less politicized. Mask mandates were only part of the equation and other approaches (Such as sheltering in place) were taken and likely followed with much more consistency than here in the US. Which in turn makes it somewhat questionable to put as much weight on those studies as being claimed here. First of all because it means that masks were not the only factor being tested and second of all because the testing environment was different from here in the US.
Finally, somebody not showing symptoms could transmit Covid. So arguing that young children seldom got ill is only part of the equation. They could very easily be a transmission vector.
In closing I'll say that this is a complex question and one that neither side seems interested in examining in a critical and objective way. This article sheds a little light, but not nearly as much as I would have liked.
A recent opinion article by Zeynep Tufekci in the controversial New York Times offered a much more subtle analysis of the Cochrane Library article. Not surprisingly, the science is less clear and the review article by Cochrane does not offer the definitive, black and white “masks make no difference” reported in the FP and elsewhere. Because the issue is so politically charged. I wish the FP would revisit this topic and report in a more nuanced fashion. I guess it’s not news to say “we don’t really know!”
The real science on human behavior: science make little difference in how many humans behave. Irrational factors such as group identity, subjectively assessed face validity, advertising, employment and propaganda are much bigger influencers. Also, the belief that science is not reliable compared to their own more subjective tools of assessing reality.
So ALL the doctors and nurses that have been wearing masks for years in clinical settings are wrong? Also the flu virtually disappeared during the pandemic due to mask wearing. “And don’t start yelling that “oh no people got the flu”. Look up what “virtually” means.
The title of this piece is “The Real Science on Masks: They Make No Difference” and the author states up front “We now have the most authoritative estimate of the value provided by wearing masks during the pandemic: approximately zero”.
And yet if you read the actual report the conclusion says "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. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.” That sounds pretty far from the author’s "approximately zero" definitive statement.
Well, I was really just making a joke, but I tried reading your treatise anyway. Sorry, but I didn't get very far. See, my kids are all grown, so the Santa thing isn't in my wheelhouse. And I'm not remotely religious, so the rest is simply information I have no use for. I'm not even real sure what polymathic actually means, but if I take polyamorous as my guide and extrapolate from there, it either means there's more than one math or you don't really know how many girlfriends you have.
“LIE TO ME ONCE-SHAME ON YOU! LIE TO ME TWICE SHAME ON ME!
What’s the answer? Look at ever comment made to any publication ever posted? Research every article posted by that person? Who’s side are they on?That’s what the Left has caused. All I ever want to hear is the truth. Good-Bad , I’m an adult and I can take it. But the government? No way will I ever believe these lying narcosis. Same goes for every DOJ,FBI, CIA and government controlled media! Especially one that funds a Chinese firm ( ever heard of communist control)? I don’t . And no one ever pays the price for lying. So do I believe this guy?
But masks DO work. We just needed to have the nuanced conversation about HOW masks work so we could use the right masks, the right way, with the right people
We have no adult serious people in positions of power
Perhaps this should come as no surprise but I posted this to Facebook and it was censored--- "False information. Checked by independent fact-checkers". Thought you would want to know if you don't already, that this will happen. FYI I have now deleted my Facebook accouont, never to return.
The author has misrepresented what this study does and doesn't show. But you
FWIW, Facebook has been claiming this is false when I shared it online, citing this fact checking source: https://www.thejournal.ie/does-the-cochrane-review-prove-masks-are-useless-at-stopping-infections-5990426-Feb2023/
yes I am a doctor. Apologies for typoes----my fingers sometimes are faster than the print on this computer.
i have practised in ICU for well over 25 years.
infective is a word which is used as well as infectious-- a trivial point when we are discussing the benefits of masks.
i stand by my original comments. Totally.
I want to thank this writer for this piece, as the study that they site, in the Cochrane Library review, was provocative and well conducted. I would like to point out however that the original author does not make sweeping commentary or takes a definitive stance on the extant data. They provide an estimate of certainty as is customary in Cochrane meta analyses. While it is true that they say that the evidence did not report a significant change with mask wearing, it is also true that they say that the data gathered in these RCTs is highly to moderately unreliable. This should give considerable pause to anyone taking a hard stance for or against mask mandates. What is often lost in the conversation after a scientific study comes out, is the nuance of the findings - particularly those that are associative findings (correlation doesn't equal causation, right?). We need to be careful of the conclusions we make and how ardent we are about them. The efficacy of mask wearing is clearly in question due to the fatigue that occurs when people wear them (and then the decrease in proper use), as well as how long masks themselves remain effective. It is also true, however, that the author points out that "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." They also call for more rigorous studies to be conducted to draw more firm conclusions on the matter. There has to be room for some nuance in this really complicated conversation, both from those who are tired of wearing the damn masks and those who are becoming more and more at odds with the evidence against mask wearing.
And yet to this day we still have to wear masks in Los Angeles County in medical facilities. The people who work there wear them all day every day. Patients who come in are told to put one on immediately. For me, this includes the place I go to for physical therapy for my ankle, essentially a small gym where I'm led through a workout. With a mask on. It's completely ridiculous, and uncomfortable, and forced on us by the leftists who run this county.
Our local clinic in Driggs Idaho finally made them "optional". Idaho may be a red state, but this area is more purple, so i figured they'd have the mask rule for years to come. But, all the people that work there - doctors, nurses, techs, receptionists, etc. - all live in the community where they are rarely worn. I figure even they go tired of it.
Some observations.
First, most of the states without mask mandates had low population densities. Arguably the most critical factor in transmission was close contact with infected individuals. Lower population densities mean lower transmission rates. Travel restrictions, particularly early also reduced transmission to rural areas.
Second, the data, both from left leaning and right leaning states is likely biased. Whether the two offset each other is anyones guess.
Third, in most other parts of the world this issue was far less politicized. Mask mandates were only part of the equation and other approaches (Such as sheltering in place) were taken and likely followed with much more consistency than here in the US. Which in turn makes it somewhat questionable to put as much weight on those studies as being claimed here. First of all because it means that masks were not the only factor being tested and second of all because the testing environment was different from here in the US.
Finally, somebody not showing symptoms could transmit Covid. So arguing that young children seldom got ill is only part of the equation. They could very easily be a transmission vector.
In closing I'll say that this is a complex question and one that neither side seems interested in examining in a critical and objective way. This article sheds a little light, but not nearly as much as I would have liked.
A recent opinion article by Zeynep Tufekci in the controversial New York Times offered a much more subtle analysis of the Cochrane Library article. Not surprisingly, the science is less clear and the review article by Cochrane does not offer the definitive, black and white “masks make no difference” reported in the FP and elsewhere. Because the issue is so politically charged. I wish the FP would revisit this topic and report in a more nuanced fashion. I guess it’s not news to say “we don’t really know!”
Yes I would like FP to cover this latest clarification: Misinterpretation, political pressure, nuanced... a little of everything?
I can’t find a way to email anybody on the editorial side to share this. For example, letter to editor or something like that? Can you?
This an example of journalists trying with good intentions to write about expert topics when they are just not capable of evaluating the source material. The Cochranr Institute has just issued a correction to its own review. People need to stop forming opinions about complex things when they aren’t qualified to evaluate the evidence. We need to slow down. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
The real science on human behavior: science make little difference in how many humans behave. Irrational factors such as group identity, subjectively assessed face validity, advertising, employment and propaganda are much bigger influencers. Also, the belief that science is not reliable compared to their own more subjective tools of assessing reality.
So ALL the doctors and nurses that have been wearing masks for years in clinical settings are wrong? Also the flu virtually disappeared during the pandemic due to mask wearing. “And don’t start yelling that “oh no people got the flu”. Look up what “virtually” means.
The title of this piece is “The Real Science on Masks: They Make No Difference” and the author states up front “We now have the most authoritative estimate of the value provided by wearing masks during the pandemic: approximately zero”.
And yet if you read the actual report the conclusion says "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. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.” That sounds pretty far from the author’s "approximately zero" definitive statement.
Well, I was really just making a joke, but I tried reading your treatise anyway. Sorry, but I didn't get very far. See, my kids are all grown, so the Santa thing isn't in my wheelhouse. And I'm not remotely religious, so the rest is simply information I have no use for. I'm not even real sure what polymathic actually means, but if I take polyamorous as my guide and extrapolate from there, it either means there's more than one math or you don't really know how many girlfriends you have.
Cheers
“LIE TO ME ONCE-SHAME ON YOU! LIE TO ME TWICE SHAME ON ME!
What’s the answer? Look at ever comment made to any publication ever posted? Research every article posted by that person? Who’s side are they on?That’s what the Left has caused. All I ever want to hear is the truth. Good-Bad , I’m an adult and I can take it. But the government? No way will I ever believe these lying narcosis. Same goes for every DOJ,FBI, CIA and government controlled media! Especially one that funds a Chinese firm ( ever heard of communist control)? I don’t . And no one ever pays the price for lying. So do I believe this guy?
But masks DO work. We just needed to have the nuanced conversation about HOW masks work so we could use the right masks, the right way, with the right people
https://polymathicbeing.substack.com/p/masks-do-work