It's important not just to remember this (the incorrect guidance on masks) but to study and understand it. When I wrote my "masks work" op-ed on March 17 for the New York Times, I honestly thought I was likely ending my career as a public writer. https://twitter.com/Aelkus/status/1261994903007113216 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Isn’t the jury still pretty far out on masks?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes, it is. But when layperson “intuition” is up against slow, deliberate scientific study, truth takes a backseat.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. Many of the world's leading health scientist plus health authorities in almost country have made it clear: asymptomatic/asymptomatic transmission makes masks especially important. Take a look at the signatories just here. https://masks4all.co/letter-over-100-prominent-health-experts-call-for-cloth-mask-requirements/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
To clarify: It is established that masks worn properly, cleaned properly, in addition to hand hygiene, physical distancing, etc. *may* reduce transmission. The question is whether, in reality, mask-wearing *actually* reduces transmission in an actual population of real people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You have less evidence of that kind for hand-washing or physical-distancing at this point than masks to be honest. Masks have more. We should do *all three* because of preponderance of evidence for all three. And the "properly" part is a misunderstanding. Any mask > no mask.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Totally agree that we should be doing all three. The thing that's (from my understanding) still in the air, is whether people shift their hand-washing/distancing/face-touching behaviors due to wearing masks significantly enough to negate their benefits.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's a "risk compensation" theory and we have evidence from all other safety devices: it just never overwhelms the actual safety effect. So I feel confident saying not likely at all. Touching face with mask on is better than without mask, and no worse harm there.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I suspect that "never" is a strong word to use there, but I'll definitely do some reading. I sincerely appreciate the dialog
@zeynep, and the work you're doing on this question :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Well, okay fair enough. So far, we haven't found a case in which risk-compensation behavior (a second-order effect) overwhelmed the benefits of the safety device (first-order effect). I don't doubt it occurs at some level, but it seem like a very small effect relatively speaking.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
We can and should keep an eye on it, just in case. But not a good enough a priori reason! Thanks. (I retract the never!
Let's say not yet!)
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.