1064 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Early in the pandemic, real-world evidence from Asia suggested that general masking might work. Covid was stopped (or at least temporarily paused) in several countries that had general masking, and an early RCT suggested a general 11% reduction in covid and a 35% reduction in covid for older people. Is that a significant effect? I'd call it mediocre, but if it comes with minimal cost, it's worth doing. Is it perfect research? No, but it's good enough for policy recommendations. Mask mandates did eventually become unnecessary, but they were no more tyrannical than clothing mandates.

 

I think the issue was that the differences in the infection rates between Asia and the West were almost entirely attributed to masking, which was a logical fallacy.

 

Asia did many things differently to the West. Yes, masking was more widespread. But, they also almost entirely shut their borders very early in the pandemic and instituted very aggressive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines. None of which was likely to have flown in the West. 

 

It never made sense to have a number of differences in the response to covid and then attribute the lower infector rates solely to the masks.

[Florin]

I think the issue was that the differences in the infection rates between Asia and the West were almost entirely attributed to masking, which was a logical fallacy.

 

Asia did many things differently to the West. Yes, masking was more widespread. But, they also almost entirely shut their borders very early in the pandemic and instituted very aggressive contact tracing and mandatory quarantines. None of which was likely to have flown in the West. 

 

It never made sense to have a number of differences in the response to covid and then attribute the lower infector rates solely to the masks.

 

The up to 35% reduction in covid was achieved in a country (Bangladesh) that didn't (AFAIK) have some of the stricter NPIs like SK did, and it had compliance of only about 50% or less. So, this is even more applicable to the West.

 

https://med.stanford...s-covid-19.html

[Daniel Cooper]

The up to 35% reduction in covid was achieved in a country (Bangladesh) that didn't (AFAIK) have some of the stricter NPIs like SK did, and it had compliance of only about 50% or less. So, this is even more applicable to the West.

 

https://med.stanford...s-covid-19.html

 

The problem with that is that Bangladesh is a country that I would probably have the least confidence in their infection rate data. It is a very poor country, very rural, and has much less of a medical infrastructure that any Western country.

 

Basically, I just don't have high confidence in their data.

[Florin]

The problem with that is that Bangladesh is a country that I would probably have the least confidence in their infection rate data. It is a very poor country, very rural, and has much less of a medical infrastructure that any Western country.

 

Basically, I just don't have high confidence in their data.

 

The researchers seemed confident enough in the data to run this study, so that should count for something. And sometimes, you have to make decisions based on imperfect data.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that there is real-world evidence to suggest that masks do work in some circumstances.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, do you have a link to the study? The link you give in post # 1052 seems to be presented as a synopsis of the "study", not the study paper itself. In your link, after the first paragraph, is the following: "Read the full paper here" where the "here" is a hyperlink to the following page. As you can see, if you click that link, there is no study.

 

I, for one, am not going to accept the results of a "study" for which I can't review purpose, scope, and methodology. Second-hand recountings don't cut it. 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 27 January 2025 - 06:16 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

The researchers seemed confident enough in the data to run this study, so that should count for something. And sometimes, you have to make decisions based on imperfect data.
 
Anyway, the bottom line is that there is real-world evidence to suggest that masks do work in some circumstances.

 
The Replication Crisis has been in the news lately. The sort of standard figure you hear is that in the medical field roughly 50% of published studies can't be replicated. 

 

There was an article in the media within the last several weeks that put the figure at 70%, though I'm not sure that figure applied solely to medicine. 

[Advocatus Diaboli]

In my post #1055 I indicate that Florin's link has a a reference link to this page, which is the page which supposedly links to the "study" in question. In reality, Florin's link contains a link called "released" in the third paragraph which takes you to the page which has a supposed link to the actual study. Sorry for any confusion.

 

In any case, there is no study to review, so the "results" hold no weight.

[Dorian Grey]

Why not simply study reality?  Find a place that had mask mandates and see if they remained largely COVID free.  

 

If they did, the masks worked...  If they didn't the masks did not.  

 

The evidence should speak for itself!  

[Florin]

The Replication Crisis has been in the news lately. The sort of standard figure you hear is that in the medical field roughly 50% of published studies can't be replicated. 
 
There was an article in the media within the last several weeks that put the figure at 70%, though I'm not sure that figure applied solely to medicine.

 
Sure, but you still use medicine. 
 

In my post #1055 I indicate that Florin's link has a a reference link to this page, which is the page which supposedly links to the "study" in question. In reality, Florin's link contains a link called "released" in the third paragraph which takes you to the page which has a supposed link to the actual study. Sorry for any confusion.
 
In any case, there is no study to review, so the "results" hold no weight.

 

STUDY DESIGN
Randomized controlled trial

 
https://www.poverty-...tion-bangladesh
 

Why not simply study reality?  Find a place that had mask mandates and see if they remained largely COVID free.  
 
If they did, the masks worked...  If they didn't the masks did not.  
 
The evidence should speak for itself!

 
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or mediocre).

[joesixpack]

I guess this is an issue on which everyone has to come to their own conclusions. I found n95 masks, and medical surgical masks effective in certain situations. I wore them when going into public buildings with a lot of people, for short periods of time. Like grocery stores. Where I was, restaurants were not open for seating, it was all take out. No movie theaters etc. No one got sick in the house. The summer of 2021 we went back to northern Wisconsin for 5 months. There was never a lock down there, and no mask requirements were ever imposed. Everyone was going to movies, going to restaurants, life was normal and I found that wearing a mask was not socially required, or encouraged - except at the Dr.s office. So I stopped, along with my wife. After 3 months I got really sick. They said I had Pneumonia, I was not tested for Covid, and they treated me with antibiotics. I think I had Covid. At the same time, other people were getting Covid and treating it like the flu. So my conclusion is masks can help if you are careful and do not stay in crowded rooms or buildings for long periods of time. But wearing a mask will not do much if you are going to go about your normal life, with no restrictions.

 

Anyway, I think I found the study, at least it looks to be complete, with downloadable documents representing their findings. Here it is:

 

https://www.science....science.abi9069

[Daniel Cooper]

 
Sure, but you still use medicine. 
 

 

 
https://www.poverty-...tion-bangladesh
 

 
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or mediocre).

 

Indeed I still use medicine.

 

But, I don't tend to believe that a single study is the last word. I think you have to look across multiple studies.

 

When I see multiple studies on the same issue come down finding a modest effect in this direction and other studies finding a modest effect in another direction (which is what I believe I see with masking), I tend to believe that if an effect exists at all, it's not very large.

 

This is what I believe to be the case with masking. I'm not sure if it helps, does nothing, or hurts. But whatever it does I do not believe that you're looking at a massive effect one way or the other. Of course, you can always embrace the studies you like, ignore the studies you don't, and believe the science backs up your favorite position. And the point is, you can do that with masks no matter which side you are on because you can find studies that support your position regardless of what that position is.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, the link you give in your post #1059 doesn't contain a "study", unless you're seeing something that my browser isn't loading. Your link has the following title and paragraph as the main content of your linked page:

 

"Normalizing Community Mask-Wearing: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Bangladesh

Evidence suggests that face masks can slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, but getting people to consistently and properly wear masks has been a public health challenge. In Bangladesh, researchers partnered with policymakers to design and evaluate strategies to increase mask uptake. Masks were distributed to households and in public places. Mask use was promoted through role-modeling, messages by prominent Bangladeshi leaders and personalities, informational brochures, and in-person reinforcement. The researchers also tested a number of incentives and behavioral nudges, including public commitment devices and text message reminders.

May 13, 2021"

 

And, on the left-hand side under "Publications", an image that, when clicked, loads a 6-page document. That document is not a study, It is essentially a "press release" or "synopsis" written by Laura Burke and Neela Saldanha (Editor: Laura Burke | Designer: Michelle Read.)--attribution was written in small print under "Give Well" near the bottom of page six.

 

Nowhere in those six pages is 35% mentioned.

 

There are 3rd person references to "the researchers" or "research team". In a study, the actions of the investigators are typically written as "we", for example as in "we found...".

 

This link mentions "35 percent", but that link doesn't contain a study, it consists of claims in a supposed study

 

Florin, you have, as yet, failed to provide a link to an actual study which can substantiate your 35% claim. 

 

Please give a link to an actual study so that readers can assess the credibility of the study.

 

 

[Florin]

Indeed I still use medicine.
 
But, I don't tend to believe that a single study is the last word. I think you have to look across multiple studies.
 
When I see multiple studies on the same issue come down finding a modest effect in this direction and other studies finding a modest effect in another direction (which is what I believe I see with masking), I tend to believe that if an effect exists at all, it's not very large.
 
This is what I believe to be the case with masking. I'm not sure if it helps, does nothing, or hurts. But whatever it does I do not believe that you're looking at a massive effect one way or the other. Of course, you can always embrace the studies you like, ignore the studies you don't, and believe the science backs up your favorite position. And the point is, you can do that with masks no matter which side you are on because you can find studies that support your position regardless of what that position is.

 
AFAIK, this was the largest RCT of masking during the pandemic and other meta reviews (we discussed at least one of them before) lean toward some positive effects of masking with so-so confidence. If you don't have better alternatives, don't you think that was enough to justify the rationale behind mask mandates?
 
Anyway, my main point is that the claim that there's no evidence that masking helps is clearly false.
 

Florin, the link you give in your post #1059 doesn't contain a "study", unless you're seeing something that my browser isn't loading. Your link has the following title and paragraph as the main content of your linked page:
 
"Normalizing Community Mask-Wearing: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Bangladesh
Evidence suggests that face masks can slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, but getting people to consistently and properly wear masks has been a public health challenge. In Bangladesh, researchers partnered with policymakers to design and evaluate strategies to increase mask uptake. Masks were distributed to households and in public places. Mask use was promoted through role-modeling, messages by prominent Bangladeshi leaders and personalities, informational brochures, and in-person reinforcement. The researchers also tested a number of incentives and behavioral nudges, including public commitment devices and text message reminders.
May 13, 2021"
 
And, on the left-hand side under "Publications", an image that, when clicked, loads a 6-page document. That document is not a study, It is essentially a "press release" or "synopsis" written by Laura Burke and Neela Saldanha (Editor: Laura Burke | Designer: Michelle Read.)--attribution was written in small print under "Give Well" near the bottom of page six.
 
Nowhere in those six pages is 35% mentioned.
 
There are 3rd person references to "the researchers" or "research team". In a study, the actions of the investigators are typically written as "we", for example as in "we found...".
 
This link mentions "35 percent", but that link doesn't contain a study, it consists of claims in a supposed study
 
Florin, you have, as yet, failed to provide a link to an actual study which can substantiate your 35% claim. 
 
Please give a link to an actual study so that readers can assess the credibility of the study.

Anyway, I think I found the study, at least it looks to be complete, with downloadable documents representing their findings. Here it is:
 
https://www.science....science.abi9069

The effects were substantially larger (and more precisely estimated) in communities where we distributed surgical masks, consistent with their greater filtration efficiency as measured in the laboratory (manuscript forthcoming). In villages randomized to receive surgical masks, the relative reduction in symptomatic seroprevalence was 11% overall, 23% among individuals aged 50 to 59 years, and 35% among those ≥60 years of age in preferred specifications.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Florin, before I give my criticisms of the study cited by joesixpack, and for which you seem to have adopted as being the "link to an actual study" that I had requested in my post #1062, I'd like to know if that study is, indeed, the study upon which you are basing your claims. If that isn't the study in question, then I need a link to the study you wish to cite. Thanks.

[Florin]

Florin, before I give my criticisms of the study cited by joesixpack, and for which you seem to have adopted as being the "link to an actual study" that I had requested in my post #1062, I'd like to know if that study is, indeed, the study upon which you are basing your claims. If that isn't the study in question, then I need a link to the study you wish to cite. Thanks.

 

It's the same study, but the peer-reviewed version seems to have more details.