Read the review. It’s the most comprehensive post pandemic study from a highly respected journal. They clearly state the following:
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. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.
If we can’t settle the issue after a 2 year pandemic, I highly doubt it will ever be settled by science.
Masking is political theater and is ultimately a matter of expressing your tribe at this point. Alternatively, we could think of people who wear masks today as leaning more heavily towards social humanism and hive mentality (society over the individual), where non masks proponents lean towards liberal humanism (in the sense of freedom of the individual, that is, personal liberty).
Given that the science is inconclusive about masks, and even suggests that they are not effective, it’s about time that news outlets drop the topic. If you want to wear a mask, then do it. But don’t force anyone else to or suggest that governments should regulate it.
COVID is over. New shit will come. Masks won’t be the solution.
Edit: downvotes without any proper rebuttal. Classic tribalism at all cost despite the truth.
The pandemic is over. COVID is sticking around forever as far as we know it. It’s endemic and it was endemic from a very early stage. The COVID zero idea was very dumb.
Hahahaha is that the shit they had to apologize for because it didn’t actually conclude masks were unnecessary but the lead author went on a press tour touting the anti mask shit anyway, and a couple of the authors were affiliated with anti-mask think tanks? That’s what you’re citing? Some shit Cochrane themselves have distanced themselves from?
“Covid is over” do you like, not live on the earth? People have been getting Covid this whole time, and yes, as this new wave comes about, more people I know are getting Covid.
You and everyone who thinks like you are a fucking joke. I can’t imagine having my head buried this far up my own ass.
Edit: also lol @ “liberal humanism.” Yeah, that humanism drops real fast when I choose to exercise my supposed personal liberty and wear a mask.
It wasn’t the lead author you dimwit. It was the editor of the journal who ultimately doesn’t get to make the decision because the article passed rigorous peer review. You clearly don’t understand how academic publishing in peer reviewed journals work. The only reason she posted this was to sooth people like you that now treat the mask like a blankie.
To be fair to them. It’s not long since I pointed that out. They seemingly haven’t seen my comments at all yet. Maybe they’ll read them, read the statement, review their understanding of the paper and express that their perspective has changed. It’s too soon to say that definitely wont happen! (So let’s enjoy imagining it will while we can.)
We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
So, did they change it? (Spoiler alert, No, they didn’t)
You people seriously just don’t get it. One editor in chief wrote this piece. It’s not all of Cochrane. Cochrane is a journal. You clearly don’t understand academic processes. The article was peer reviewed by a panel of experts and written by numerous other experts. The author you are bringing up is solely one person that has an opinion on the matter due to the political ramifications of the article’s findings.
It’s annoying having to explain academic processes to the general public who don’t have a clue.
"Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies. "
Soooo, I will continue to think that the mask is effective against viruses spreading by air. Knowing that n95/P2 masks protect mostly the person who wear them and surgical masks protect mostly people from the wearer.
Yes, they aren’t confident. Isn’t it amazing that that is their results after 2 fucking years and a ton of studies into it? You’d think they could come up with more conclusive evidence that masks work. But they didn’t. The science on masks isn’t resolved. That’s pretty damning in my view.
Surgical masks don’t do shit. They only protect larger particles. Virus shit is far too small for any effectiveness.
I put in my previous message one of the most important reason, if not the most important, why it is difficult to have good data about the mask efficiency. Here it is again :
Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.
If you can not trust the people you use as data, you can not trust your results, and for something as trivial as wearing a mask, we have seen that people cannot be trusted… So, how can you produce proof that masks work ?
Yes surgical masks are effective. Not 100%, but they have a good efficiency to prevent people to spread the desease. They stop the biggest dropplets when you speak or cought, no debate. They also stop smaller particles because of the electrostatic effects and the diffusion effects. Also, the mask mesh doesn’t look like a football net. It’s more like a dense forest. Adding to that the fact than small particles don’t move in straight lines ( brownian movement ), it makes the surgical masks have a non neglectible efficency.
The main reasons surgical masks are recommended above the others (n95/p2),are that other masks are more disturbing to wear and they cost more than surgical masks.
Masking is not an effective solution. Anyone that propagates this shit is just doing it for clicks at this point.
Have you read the highly respected Cochrane Review? https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
Read the review. It’s the most comprehensive post pandemic study from a highly respected journal. They clearly state the following:
If we can’t settle the issue after a 2 year pandemic, I highly doubt it will ever be settled by science.
Masking is political theater and is ultimately a matter of expressing your tribe at this point. Alternatively, we could think of people who wear masks today as leaning more heavily towards social humanism and hive mentality (society over the individual), where non masks proponents lean towards liberal humanism (in the sense of freedom of the individual, that is, personal liberty).
Given that the science is inconclusive about masks, and even suggests that they are not effective, it’s about time that news outlets drop the topic. If you want to wear a mask, then do it. But don’t force anyone else to or suggest that governments should regulate it.
COVID is over. New shit will come. Masks won’t be the solution.
Edit: downvotes without any proper rebuttal. Classic tribalism at all cost despite the truth.
COVID is over, that’s why everyone I know has caught it at least twice
The pandemic is over. COVID is sticking around forever as far as we know it. It’s endemic and it was endemic from a very early stage. The COVID zero idea was very dumb.
Hahahaha is that the shit they had to apologize for because it didn’t actually conclude masks were unnecessary but the lead author went on a press tour touting the anti mask shit anyway, and a couple of the authors were affiliated with anti-mask think tanks? That’s what you’re citing? Some shit Cochrane themselves have distanced themselves from?
“Covid is over” do you like, not live on the earth? People have been getting Covid this whole time, and yes, as this new wave comes about, more people I know are getting Covid. You and everyone who thinks like you are a fucking joke. I can’t imagine having my head buried this far up my own ass.
Edit: also lol @ “liberal humanism.” Yeah, that humanism drops real fast when I choose to exercise my supposed personal liberty and wear a mask.
It wasn’t the lead author you dimwit. It was the editor of the journal who ultimately doesn’t get to make the decision because the article passed rigorous peer review. You clearly don’t understand how academic publishing in peer reviewed journals work. The only reason she posted this was to sooth people like you that now treat the mask like a blankie.
Lol this your man?
https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-lead-author-of-new-cochrane
Reading and understanding are not the same things.
Here’s Cochrane’s rebuttal: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review
I’m losing my mind that this person is constantly going
“COCHRANE IS TRUSTWORTHY. THEY SAY MASK BAD”
And then you point out that cochrane did not say that, and have emphasised the opposite. And they ignore this as if its fake news 😂
To be fair to them. It’s not long since I pointed that out. They seemingly haven’t seen my comments at all yet. Maybe they’ll read them, read the statement, review their understanding of the paper and express that their perspective has changed. It’s too soon to say that definitely wont happen! (So let’s enjoy imagining it will while we can.)
Yknow what, that’s fair
So, did they change it? (Spoiler alert, No, they didn’t)
You people seriously just don’t get it. One editor in chief wrote this piece. It’s not all of Cochrane. Cochrane is a journal. You clearly don’t understand academic processes. The article was peer reviewed by a panel of experts and written by numerous other experts. The author you are bringing up is solely one person that has an opinion on the matter due to the political ramifications of the article’s findings.
It’s annoying having to explain academic processes to the general public who don’t have a clue.
"Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies. "
Yeah… They are not really confident about their results… You can find studies that show effectiveness of the mask in a few clics : https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/egcenter-discussion-paper-series/1086/
Soooo, I will continue to think that the mask is effective against viruses spreading by air. Knowing that n95/P2 masks protect mostly the person who wear them and surgical masks protect mostly people from the wearer.
Yes, they aren’t confident. Isn’t it amazing that that is their results after 2 fucking years and a ton of studies into it? You’d think they could come up with more conclusive evidence that masks work. But they didn’t. The science on masks isn’t resolved. That’s pretty damning in my view.
Surgical masks don’t do shit. They only protect larger particles. Virus shit is far too small for any effectiveness.
I put in my previous message one of the most important reason, if not the most important, why it is difficult to have good data about the mask efficiency. Here it is again : Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies. If you can not trust the people you use as data, you can not trust your results, and for something as trivial as wearing a mask, we have seen that people cannot be trusted… So, how can you produce proof that masks work ?
Yes surgical masks are effective. Not 100%, but they have a good efficiency to prevent people to spread the desease. They stop the biggest dropplets when you speak or cought, no debate. They also stop smaller particles because of the electrostatic effects and the diffusion effects. Also, the mask mesh doesn’t look like a football net. It’s more like a dense forest. Adding to that the fact than small particles don’t move in straight lines ( brownian movement ), it makes the surgical masks have a non neglectible efficency.
The main reasons surgical masks are recommended above the others (n95/p2),are that other masks are more disturbing to wear and they cost more than surgical masks.