No, you've confused the point here! That a study showed that is not convincing, but rather, a symptom of the lack of strong and consistent evidence that they are effective. Nobody thinks they make it worse (unless you engage in risky behavior as a result, of course).
-
-
The confusion on the benefits does not extend from positive to negative infinity. But given the conflicting recommendations and results on the spectrum of ineffective to effective, it's hard to escape "confusing".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BobKerns @diviacaroline
That what not what I implied at all. I just have not seen studies that demonstrate convincingly that masks don't reduce infections, and several that seem to show the opposite. So if you say it's confusing, I want to know why.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @diviacaroline
Here's where you *asked* for studies showing it increased them. You introduced it. Glad we can dispose of it! It's confusing because there are studies, like the one I cited earlier, that suggest they're ineffective. If they were *convincing*, then we wouldn't have confusion!pic.twitter.com/xnhxHlgr8u
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think anybody really thinks they have zero benefit. I am certainly NOT trying to argue that case in any event. But there are a host of questions within that space. Does your typical person wearing a mask reduce his risk of household transmission, for example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Or is it swamped by other factors, or do poor usage practices render it moot, etc. For healthcare, how much worse are surgical masks as PPE than N95, and are goggles or a face shield necessary, etc. That's why the conflicting advice. My own opinion is: wear them!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BobKerns
I just don't see that the evidence is somehow not clear or would deviate from common sense. Masks leads to a significant reduction in infections. They are by themselves not perfect (but that was never the claim). Further reduction requires face shields/goggles, helmets etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is a tradeoff: the more difficult the protection, the higher the cost and the lower the compliance. It may be impractical to give everyone a motorized gas mask. The question is how many health care workers, elderly and rest-of-population you want to save at which cost.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's a complex calculation that is also morally not trivial, and it depends on modeling a distribution of possible ground truths. What irks me is that the CDC and WHO do not seem to make such calculations but apparently pull a misinformed opinion out of their asses.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I'd really like to see that WHO take you referenced, unless it's the "false sense of security" argument, in which case, don't bother. Seen enough of those over the years. I presume they're doing the calculations and then not bothering to communicate them. Also a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Joscha Bach Retweeted World Health Organization Western Pacific
Joscha Bach added,
https://bit.ly/2QN3QOp pic.twitter.com/JDQhnowx3p-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Thanks! Ah, yes, the "handling your contaminated mask" thing. That one is a real stretch. If your mask got contaminated, how likely is handling it to be WORSE than what it protected you from? Makes no sense to me. Unforunately, I can't hear the audio at the moment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Why not educate people on the proper use of masks instead??? Like how to properly remove gloves: https://www.globus.co.uk/how-to-safely-remove-disposable-gloves …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.