I have a new article in the New York Times discussing lack of randomized trials for masks for source-control for COVID. In my newsletter, I discuss what this debate/debacle reveals, not just about COVID denialism, but also about our public health response.https://zeynep.substack.com/p/on-randomized-trials-and-medicine …
-
-
I know *you* don't, but apparently others do, and how do we sort out the disagreements as executives implement sweeping requirements without legislative involvement? It seems hard if we disclaim the need for empirical evidence on the quantitative nature of harms/benefits.
-
Another issue that comes up peripherally in the piece when discussing healthcare worker study is cleanliness of masks. People in community wearing dirty masks and touching constantly. We must consider increased exposure to pathogens in this respect.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I design masks, any that work w/SARS-CoV-2 will have it explicitly stated on the packaging, respiratory illnesses are with a predominance of pathogens in small particles (<5 μm). Without ventilation an N95 respirator will eventually fail. Read the packaging.pic.twitter.com/nvH1jh4Egx
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Masks are being required and mandated in these contexts. Undermines the importance of masks in indoor settings and neglects the possible harms to young kids—socially & b/c of dirty masks that are being touched dozens, if not hundreds, of times per day.
-
If the point of community masking is primarily source control, does it matter as much if they get touched by the wearer?
- 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.