The people will do more risky things then due to false sense of security argument has been applied to everything from HIV prevention measures to helmets to seat-belts to basically every safety device, also against health insurance (moral hazard). Numbers never bear it out.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Do you have any evidence with regards to masks? The thing about helmets, seat belts, and condoms is that they work a hell of a lot better than masks. So you can't make a straight comparison.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kirtipatelmd
Of course. Hong Kong/Taiwan/S.Korea (with some of world's best health authorities) have been very clear on how important masks are to reduce asymptomatic/asymptomatic transmission. There are no known/shown risks and really no plausible ones. (Review article is coming out soon.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @kirtipatelmd
(HK also has cut down flu drastically!) Also, interesting case is Japan which is screwing up everything but masks (no tracing, no isolation, everything is open, terrible!) but has widespread mask wearing. They will get hit, but it's been way way slower. They aren't NYC/Lombardy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @kirtipatelmd
This has some older papers including a lot on cloth masks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/edit#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow … Basically, it's a good source control mechanism, plus it gives sick people cover to wear one. (No way can only the sick/symptomatic wear it—too much stigma).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @kirtipatelmd
So the only reasonable argument against them would be if there was indeed false security/risk behavior that we wouldn't otherwise see. But research on risk/safety has no such precedent (just the opposite) plus masks may even help by 1-removing stigma; 2-signaling crisis.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @kirtipatelmd
The big misunderstanding has been that cloth/surgical masks are a community measure targeting R0 via source control, not what health-care workers need to protect themselves—different game there. Plus intubation/aerosols risk for hcw etc. For population, it's R0 dampening. /end
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Wear the mask to feel better if you'd like but it is not going to save you. Distance is the key.pic.twitter.com/5HmC6BX3mo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kirtipatelmd
All those people would be worse off without masks. Nobody is arguing they should not distance. And history of risk/safety tells us that "false security/increased risk" arguments do not pan out. I think the evidence is clear enough even CDC/WHO shifted. I cannot add more. Bye!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
The WHO on masks: "insufficient" to provide protection. And the CDC has degraded under Trump from the once reputable organization it was. Cloth masks but no broad testing, tracing...what a joke.pic.twitter.com/IfqPNGsW1r
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
(I don't disagree that we should have the other legs, and it's a disgrace that we don't. I don't think that's an argument against source-control measures and yeah should've been ready and had surgical masks at least for population but here we are.)
-
- Show replies
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.