When scientific evidence about a possible low-cost preventative measure is mixed, the upside would be saved lives, and there is virtually no downside to using that preventative measure, the scientifically best thing to do would be to temporarily use that preventative measure until there is better data.
I wear masks (N95 when I visit my elderly relatives) and am not against them. I plan on wearing masks until I have personally been vaccinated and test positive for antibodies. But not after that.
Where it gets weird is when 30% of people won't take a vaccine in the future, the vaccine is somewhere south of 70% effective, and none of the current phase 3 vaccines are seeking approval for use by children either. So what if COVID-19 sticks around for a while as a result. What if you can't tell who has had a vaccine and who hasn't?
Do you plan on wearing a mask everywhere for the next 5 years long after you've tested positive for antibodies? Because I don't.
There are downsides, like when the government threatens violence against its citizens for not complying with a preventative measure with mixed efficacy at best.
An article written by an expert in biology and disease and the director of the National Institutes of Health, which summarizes an a article that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and written by another accomplished medical doctor, isn't scientific enough for you.
Why? Because Sweden didn't mandate masks. First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries. Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.
I can not read the parent post since it was deleted, but...
> First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries.
Then again, most of those deaths occurred in care homes where the infection was spread by personnel who did not follow the personal protection mandates because they could not read the (Swedish) instructions. The number and outcome of infections outside of these facilities does not seem to be markedly different from that in states which have strong masking mandates, Italy being a good example of such.
> Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.
The fact of Swedish numbers - outside of the care facilities which I mentioned above - not being markedly worse than those in places with strong masking mandates does indicate that masking is not an effective way of limiting the spread of the disease, unless those places with strong masking mandates have other practices which lead to increased infection rates which level out the gains from masking compared to Swedish numbers.
There is no doubt that the correct use of the correct type of masks can help limit the spread of aerosol-borne infectious agents. The problem with masking mandates is that most people do not know how to correctly use masks, nor do most people have access to the correct type of mask. Re-using masks, handling potentially infected masks without care, storing used masks together with unused ones in coat pockets, there are many ways in which a masking mandate can negate any potential benefits from masks or even lead to a worse outcome. This is also one of the reasons for the different opinion on whether to implement masking mandates in different countries, e.g. Anders Tegnell (who leads the SARS2-campaign in Sweden) does not support a masking mandate. Fauci did not support masking but has changed his opinion on the matter for reasons as of yet unknown.
Masks do not save lives. Masks can save lives when of the correct type, used correctly. This is a big difference.
I'm unsure why you wouldn't consider wearing a mask to "be the right thing"
I don't think anybody is saying that masks are a panacea - that would be "everybody stay home until we have a working vaccine".
However, they seem a completely sensible thing that you can do that reduces transmission (so some extent at least), whilst allowing you to go about your normal life relatively unimpeded.
A bit like speed limits on the road - something legally enforceable that 'generally' reduces risk for us all. You can make exceptions as to why you don't feel you need to comply "There was nobody else on the road", "I'm a great driver", "My car has auto-braking" or "German autobahns don't have limits and are safer" - but most of the world has decided it's safer that most roads should have a limit.
dheera|5 years ago
harambae|5 years ago
Where it gets weird is when 30% of people won't take a vaccine in the future, the vaccine is somewhere south of 70% effective, and none of the current phase 3 vaccines are seeking approval for use by children either. So what if COVID-19 sticks around for a while as a result. What if you can't tell who has had a vaccine and who hasn't?
Do you plan on wearing a mask everywhere for the next 5 years long after you've tested positive for antibodies? Because I don't.
ezekg|5 years ago
mathgorges|5 years ago
I'm a layman, but the citations at the end of this article seem compelling.
latch|5 years ago
Why? Because Sweden didn't mandate masks. First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries. Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.
Masks save lives (1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...
(2) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
(3) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7
(4) https://directorsblog.nih.gov/author/collinsfs/
Yetanfou|5 years ago
I can not read the parent post since it was deleted, but...
> First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries.
Then again, most of those deaths occurred in care homes where the infection was spread by personnel who did not follow the personal protection mandates because they could not read the (Swedish) instructions. The number and outcome of infections outside of these facilities does not seem to be markedly different from that in states which have strong masking mandates, Italy being a good example of such.
> Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.
The fact of Swedish numbers - outside of the care facilities which I mentioned above - not being markedly worse than those in places with strong masking mandates does indicate that masking is not an effective way of limiting the spread of the disease, unless those places with strong masking mandates have other practices which lead to increased infection rates which level out the gains from masking compared to Swedish numbers.
There is no doubt that the correct use of the correct type of masks can help limit the spread of aerosol-borne infectious agents. The problem with masking mandates is that most people do not know how to correctly use masks, nor do most people have access to the correct type of mask. Re-using masks, handling potentially infected masks without care, storing used masks together with unused ones in coat pockets, there are many ways in which a masking mandate can negate any potential benefits from masks or even lead to a worse outcome. This is also one of the reasons for the different opinion on whether to implement masking mandates in different countries, e.g. Anders Tegnell (who leads the SARS2-campaign in Sweden) does not support a masking mandate. Fauci did not support masking but has changed his opinion on the matter for reasons as of yet unknown.
Masks do not save lives. Masks can save lives when of the correct type, used correctly. This is a big difference.
nradov|5 years ago
[deleted]
norwegianwhale|5 years ago
[deleted]
herp23|5 years ago
[deleted]
goldcd|5 years ago
I don't think anybody is saying that masks are a panacea - that would be "everybody stay home until we have a working vaccine".
However, they seem a completely sensible thing that you can do that reduces transmission (so some extent at least), whilst allowing you to go about your normal life relatively unimpeded.
A bit like speed limits on the road - something legally enforceable that 'generally' reduces risk for us all. You can make exceptions as to why you don't feel you need to comply "There was nobody else on the road", "I'm a great driver", "My car has auto-braking" or "German autobahns don't have limits and are safer" - but most of the world has decided it's safer that most roads should have a limit.
ezekg|5 years ago