I’m not that sure. A lot of experts agree that there’s not much quality data to reach that conclusion.
Most “definitive proof” comes from mechanical studies (they measure how far your saliva is reaching with and with out mask), but that’s not the only important factor.
Masks are not designed for full day use, and by wearing them everyone is constantly touching their face, mouth and nose. This sounds to me like a way worse infection vector. Viruses like covid can survive for a long time on surfaces.
It’s hard to separate the effects of masks from that of hand sanitizer, vaccinations, or other measures taken.
Could I get a citation for this please? Just about every source I've seen has since admitted that masks did absolutely nothing for the purposes for which they were advised to be used.
It's not obviously false, because there were studies available at the time that showed masks did not work to protect individuals, especially members of the public.
But, again, I'd be interested to read any studies you have that were 1) available at the time and 2) showed benefit of wearing masks.
> From what I read, these are only useful if you're sick and trying to reduce transmission.
Governments have been telling this, as well, but it cannot be 100% true. I supposed it was a white lie to prevent people from stockpiling.
Otherwise, there would be no use in medical personnel using masks.
I can understand that face masks might not be the best measure for healthy people, I can understand that they might not be super-effective, I can also understand that only certain types of masks are effective, but I cannot rationally believe all masks are completely useless.
> The conclusion that cloth masks are ineffective against viruses with an airborne spread, while a properly worn n95 mask does provide real protection is hardly premature.
You're just asserting it to be true, so yes, it is.
> I've been really disappointed with my colleagues in public health for not being more clear about what can masking can do or not do.
I agree with this, but I also can't really blame them -- there's essentially no good data that community masking works at all. The best data we have (the few RCTs) are almost universally negative.
This entire issue has been driven by mechanistic theories, groupthink and the politics of symbols.
> Also mostly you get covid when not wearing one..
The conclusion I would draw from your own beliefs here is that we should be wearing masks all the time, especially around family... not that masks don't work.
Personally while I wear a mask most of the time when out, I do feel that we really don't know as much as we'd like to think about mask efficacy. The trouble is your own reasoning here is inconsistent. Either masks don't work as well as we think and risk of infection is equally likely in public or at home, or they do work effectively but we don't wear them at important times.
The argument you should have from your own beliefs here should be for more mask wearing not less.
> It seems reasonable to suggest that masks reduce disease and save lives. This may be a scientifically provable fact.
When masks are worn correctly by trained people as intended (form fitted N95s used for one short task in one room and then safely discarded), there seems to be a reasonable argument that masks are somewhat effective for reducing the spread of disease.
But in the real world; the masks are the wrong types and aren't form-fitted, people are constantly adjusting them and moving them around and touching them, many people are basically walking around half the time with their nose hanging out, people wear them not only for many hours at a time but often for days/weeks at a time without being washed and breathing in their own moist bacteria colonies, etc. I'm not sure if real-world mask usage results in a significant net-positive: they could actually have a net-negative effect when you consider the amount of bacteria people are inhaling from their own mask.
> Stories about children either passing out or dying because they were required to wear masks.
Do you have any citations for these events, because they seem to be absurd misinformation.
The country I'm in (Singapore) has legally required masks in public since last year (as have many other countries) so everyone is wearing masks, and so far, I have not heard of a single case of people suffering due to wearing masks.
In fact, I even wear my mask when I go running and I have never felt any significant issues with breathing, even after hours of vigorous exercise.
If masks could reliably cause breathing issues in any significant way, given the number of people in the world who are wearing masks every day, we should expect a statistically significant number of such cases, not just a few cherry-picked anecdotes.
> to renowned Virologists stating that facemask usage is ineffective until the evidence was too overwhelming.
Source? I saw nothing of that. What I did saw was health officials dissuading the public from buying gloves and masks because they were in very short supply and the spike in demand was forcing frontline workers, those who actually need gloves and masks, to macguyver theirselves alternative protective equipment.
At most, I've only saw health officials state that mask usage among the general public was not an assurance of immunity because wearing a mask provided a false sense of protection, and could even be counterproductive because it motivated users to keep touching their faces.
> there is no good quality evidence to show that masks work, and there's plenty of evidence to show that masks do not work.
Bullshit. Most of all because it's not a binary issue at all. Even if masks reduce the number of particles you exhale and inhale only by 30%, that makes a huge difference for the population as a whole.
> On top of this, there is decent reason to believe that there's a down-side to mask laws: too many people think that they can behave normally if they're wearing a mask, when the evidence simply doesn't support it.
But you are just making that one up. You don't have studies showing people wearing masks taking more risk than non-masks wearing people. Also, the scientists talk about effectiveness of masks it is not like I had seen a single one claiming it is perfect.
This whole argument is just being manipulative. Trying to pretend it is all about science and precision, when it is nothing like that.
> it's true that widespread use of masks is somewhat beneficial. It's also true that we don't have enough for absolutely everyone, and that health care workers being unable to procure masks would be detrimental. The question is not which is true, because both are.
But the misinformation at issue is the idea that masks don't help, not the idea that they do help.
> The primary transmission vector by far is nose and mouth and masks are very well established to substantially reduce infection rates.
Which doesn't at all explain all of the studies that found little to no effect to pervasive masking. If the effect is as strong as you're suggesting, then even partial masking would show an effect, even at population levels. This issue is simply not as settled as you're portraying.
> It’s that you feel that people recommending masking have placed a value judgement on people who don’t and I totally get that. But notice I did nothing of the kind.
This thread started on this premise, and I replied along those lines, and then you replied to me. I've made no assumptions about you other than you're clearly pro-mask and convinced by the evidence, and the only position I've staked is that the evidence is plausible but not as clear as you and others have been portraying.
Of course, they are super annoying. I wear a well fitting n95 mask and don’t go out much. However, this is a personal choice. Obviously mandating that Karen wears a loose cotton tshirt over just her mouth and not nose to go to kmart isn’t going to halt a global virus with a double digit R0.
I am sick of security theater. People won’t get vaccinated to save their own life, they certainly aren’t going to wear a mask. Masks do suck and it is really hard to get data on whether they are “worth” it. This paper say 75x but there are definitely differing results. If the true number was 75x i think people would wear them but honestly i dont think this is close to the real world results
> if there's a pandemic you wear a mask - everywhere all the time
I thought the expert advice from the WHO is to not wear a mask?
> There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.
> At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk.
It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.)
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable.
> The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus).
When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.
> The masks used by 90% of people use are no better than tying a t-shirt over your face.
In fact tying a t-shirt over your face provides decent protection. This stuff was all studied. You're right that good masks with good seals work much better than amateur cloth masks. You are wildly wrong to imply as you do that they don't work. They clearly do.
Again, I just don't understand the irrationality here. They're just masks. They're cheap and effective, continue to be, and shouldn't ever have been big deal. If people want to wear masks for a little extra protection let them wear a fucking mask for God's sake. Why must everything be a politicized fight?
> especially since the prevailing guidance for a year now has been to wear masks to reduce airborne transmission
That is just an appeal to authority. Which has been par for course. This whole mess is built on a tower of circular references where everybody says "well, the other guy said to do it and they must have a good reason for it".
That being said, I too share a hypothesis that improperly worn masks (aka 95% of all masks being worn) do more harm than good. I'd love to see studies that show it but in this environment good luck getting it funded, much less published. Authors of such a study would probably get death threats.
Also being said, it isn't upon the skeptics to prove that masks dont work. You cannot prove something doesn't work. The burden of proof is on the people who say masks work in a way that makes them work their non-trival costs to society. Logic has been inverted the entire time this mess has been going on... somehow it is up to the skeptics to "prove" that restrictions don't work, "prove" that masks don't work, and "prove" that it is safe to return to normal. Nope. That isn't how it works.
They say there is not enough evidence to back up the idea that the general population wearing masks has a benefit to everyone.
> There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit.
reply