“Mask-wearing is the single most effective public health measure at tackling Covid, reducing incidence by 53%, the first global study of its kind shows.”
[removed]
Hasn’t stopped covid for shit. Meanwhile Sweden never mandated mask wearing and is 54th in terms of death per capita, much better than some of the mask crazed countries. Absolutely demolishes this narrative.
I’d be interested to see what type of masks were used in each study.
Do places like Austria and Germany stipulate proper masks, compared to the UK with their cotton masks?
I would love for these stuff to work as well as the studies say they do (masks, social distance, vaccines) because then we would be out of this situation already, but when you look at the actual questionable real life results vs the theory there seem to be something wrong.
I guess it’s the same stuff between the Internet speed ISP tells you you’re gonna get (when they test it in ridiculously perfect conditions) and what you actually get in practice.
And he has been consistently pro-vaccination, but against some mandates from the start.
Some outtakes:
“Before you answer, let’s remember that even the authors of the 53% study write, “Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate to serious or critical.””
“Non randomized data with dirty measures of exposure and unrealistic effect sizes should set off warning bells. Or, if you want to just believe in things, then go ahead, just believe in them, but don’t pretend you are following a consistent framework for evaluating evidence. And no need to publish papers that don’t prove anything or change anyone’s mind.
The truth is we should have run several cluster RCTs in western, high income nations. For kids, adults, in different settings, with variation in masking strategies. We didn’t do it for the same reason people RT the Guardian headline. Faith outpaced evidence when it comes to masks.”
They didn’t say how they conducted the study to get the results? Are they just looking at mask wearing policies and comparing that with covid rates? Studies show that some masks work really well, some don’t really work all that well, and no where near as effective as it’s implied
Edit: nevermind, I see the critique as the top comment. I think articles such these (theguardian) do more harm than good when educating the public. Highly misleading information
That’s very pretty and all, but the question is the following: for how long are we going to limit transmission, and with what ultimate goal? Because stalling until we got vaccines had its logic, right now we’re just prolonging measures indefinitely. Here in Portugal there’s talk of new restrictions (including outdoor masking apparently…), while disease burden is low, as we have 86% of total population vaccinated, but cases are still rising.
8 comments
“Mask-wearing is the single most effective public health measure at tackling Covid, reducing incidence by 53%, the first global study of its kind shows.”
[removed]
Hasn’t stopped covid for shit. Meanwhile Sweden never mandated mask wearing and is 54th in terms of death per capita, much better than some of the mask crazed countries. Absolutely demolishes this narrative.
I’d be interested to see what type of masks were used in each study.
Do places like Austria and Germany stipulate proper masks, compared to the UK with their cotton masks?
I would love for these stuff to work as well as the studies say they do (masks, social distance, vaccines) because then we would be out of this situation already, but when you look at the actual questionable real life results vs the theory there seem to be something wrong.
I guess it’s the same stuff between the Internet speed ISP tells you you’re gonna get (when they test it in ridiculously perfect conditions) and what you actually get in practice.
Some critique of the study:
[https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk-of-covid19-by](https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/do-masks-reduce-risk-of-covid19-by)
Before someone starts shouting “antivax!” here is the author’s credentials [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ym4rwk0AAAAJ&hl=en](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ym4rwk0AAAAJ&hl=en)
And he has been consistently pro-vaccination, but against some mandates from the start.
Some outtakes:
“Before you answer, let’s remember that even the authors of the 53% study write, “Risk of bias across the six studies ranged from moderate to serious or critical.””
“Non randomized data with dirty measures of exposure and unrealistic effect sizes should set off warning bells. Or, if you want to just believe in things, then go ahead, just believe in them, but don’t pretend you are following a consistent framework for evaluating evidence. And no need to publish papers that don’t prove anything or change anyone’s mind.
The truth is we should have run several cluster RCTs in western, high income nations. For kids, adults, in different settings, with variation in masking strategies. We didn’t do it for the same reason people RT the Guardian headline. Faith outpaced evidence when it comes to masks.”
They didn’t say how they conducted the study to get the results? Are they just looking at mask wearing policies and comparing that with covid rates? Studies show that some masks work really well, some don’t really work all that well, and no where near as effective as it’s implied
Edit: nevermind, I see the critique as the top comment. I think articles such these (theguardian) do more harm than good when educating the public. Highly misleading information
That’s very pretty and all, but the question is the following: for how long are we going to limit transmission, and with what ultimate goal? Because stalling until we got vaccines had its logic, right now we’re just prolonging measures indefinitely. Here in Portugal there’s talk of new restrictions (including outdoor masking apparently…), while disease burden is low, as we have 86% of total population vaccinated, but cases are still rising.