I may be missing something here but the @WHO advice on masks doesn’t add up as reported here (also paging @bencowling88 who will have more useful things to say on the subject than I do) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/who-changes-advice-medical-grade-masks-over-60s … 1/n
-
Show this thread
-
This implies that ‘medical masks’ should be worn by those at risk, to prevent them becoming infected 2/npic.twitter.com/oKjA1wcUVi
2 replies 3 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Presumably this is the reason for the difference? The ‘medical masks’ protect the vulnerable from becoming infected while the other masks prevent other people from transmitting ‘if properly used’. But if they prevent transmission why limit their use to the settings specified? 3/npic.twitter.com/5V4ILIRKZ4
3 replies 3 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
And all this ‘if properly used’ - where are the plans to train the vulnerable in the use of higher grade medical masks? Concern is often expressed over false sense of security, more often touching face etc 4/n
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Bill Hanage Retweeted Ben Cowling
I am presuming the research cited is the Chu et al review in
@TheLancet. I’m not sure that’s the best source of evidence when it comes to mask use in the community vs healthcare because of training in the latter setting and confounders https://twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1269139370121953280?s=21 … is 5/nBill Hanage added,
Ben CowlingVerified account @bencowling88(1/16) However, I don't follow the argument that the guidance has changed because of new evidence. The evidence has been there all along. I have a few comments on the most recent review in the Lancet https://twitter.com/bencowling88/status/1269076755005861888 …Show this thread2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @BillHanage
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
Note "false sense of security" claim in the guidance has no citations. I briefed this guidance committee on how that worry was not just without evidence, there is evidence to the contrary. Disappointed they still just hand-waved it in. Paper under review:https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1268935532396130305 …
zeynep tufekci added,
zeynep tufekciVerified account @zeynepHere's a preprint of a paper (I'm a co-author) where we review the "false sense of security" claim and explain why it doesn't stand to evidence at all, and why, on the contrary, universal masks would be expected to lessen stigma and heighten solidarity. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v2 … pic.twitter.com/2tDzvYGNVrShow this thread3 replies 4 retweets 9 likes
False sense of security, if true, would apply to hygiene+ distance—if anything, more, no visible signaling and solidarity. Many other issues with this overly-complicated, belated walk-back. But that's all we get. Alas. In any case, world has moved on. Not the best moment for WHO.
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.