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 -
Replying to @zeynep
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. There’s something about mask use that veers into the ideological
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BillHanage
Indeed! Lack of RCTs are cited as a reason not to mask despite other evidence, but then evidence for harms and worries is all without citations and mostly hand-waving. Then, handwashing for COVID has less RCT evidence but nobody worries about that (but, of course, let's do it!).
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
It’s definitely too nuanced for Twitter, but there is something interesting about what counts as evidence, and how to make decisions when you don’t have all the evidence you’d like. RCTs if possible are great, but they’re not the *only* source of evidence.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @BillHanage @zeynep
I think some of the issue is that most academics aren’t courageous enough to take a stand on the evidence without a gold standard RCT to back them up. The sum total of the evidence backs up
@zeynep’s points. But too many are afraid of the very small chance masks could backfire.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Yeah, I understand that, of course. RCTs catch so many things that are otherwise hard to tease out. One problem is in the "harm on both sides" and "time is of the essence" situations. That said, the only harms here were shortage (for non-cloth masks) and the Deaf community.
-
-
Self-infection? How can that be more harmful than no masks? Not in a hospital, and if outside of mask is contaminated, then the person would be infected without a mask. If person already infected, not a concern. False sense of security? No evidence and reasons to think otherwise.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
- 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.