The absolute risk reduction was abysmal even in the surgical mask arm, but the total number of confirmed infected people was small, so there wasn't a big delta to work with.
Fuck this study and fuck this guy. Some of us had to rig shit out of furnace filters because you couldn't even buy fabric. Some of us had to give half our masks to our competitors or they would have had nothing. Six cents for washable surgical masks is great... If you can get them. If not? Putting a fucking gaiter on at least makes the antivax nightmare constantly pulling it on and off her nose think about hwr goddamn breathing. Had a bleeder last week. 3 liters. She spent four days in the hospital while they buttressed her up with iron injections and glucose. "But wait!" You say. "She lost three goddamn liters! Why aren't they transfusing her?" because they don't have the blood to spare. So sure. Shit on the only fucking option again. After all, you probably have PostMates bring your groceries to your door and it's all so deliciously academic. Cuz what I really need? Is a half dozen shrieking harpies a day arguing with my receptionist about which masks work. You wanna know why people are eating horse dewormer? One goddamn misunderstood study.
Overinterpreting of a single study also led to the whole HCQ debacle. It's almost as if we've learned nothing about science in the last 18 months! One of the things about this study that makes it hard to interpret, beyond the low total case numbers, is that they don't actually have data about whether for an individual masking did anything. They only talk about populations, and rightly so, because that's the study design. But within that relative risk reduction of 11% or whatever, what's the effect size among strict mask adherents? We don't know. What can be said about this study is that when absolute case loads are low, and mask wearing is lax generally, then wearing a surgical mask is a little better than not wearing a surgical mask. Not sure any other conclusions can be drawn. I don't know what hand the authors had in overinterpretation of their study, but I don't think they can be totally held accountable for how the media portrays it. Science journalism is bad, because if it wasn't bad no one would read articles about science. They would be too boring.
This study is dumb because: - the effectiveness of a mask is a physical measurement. That's where that whole "n95" thing comes from. It's almost as if NIOSH, OSHA, the WTO and every other regulatory body on the planet had their own standards, and you can look up how they compare. Wanna measure the "n" number of a cloth mask? been done. It isn't n00, it isn't n100. - the effectiveness of mask wearing is a sociological requirement. This study is "if you falsify data for me I will give you $190." It's like those fucking German choads who did fluid dynamics for a living who came out with a video that showed bicyclists poisoning the universe so that every old lady could stare daggers at me for daring to jog on the other side of the street. This study shows that umbrellas cause more rain than raincoats, so we should all leave our umbrellas in the closet if we want to arrive at work with our heads dry.What can be said about this study is that when absolute case loads are low, and mask wearing is lax generally, then wearing a surgical mask is a little better than not wearing a surgical mask.
N numbers don't actually mean much in the real world if people aren't using masks (a) all the time, and (b) that fit perfectly. And everyone is different, but nobody follows both of those rules all the time. My guess is that you do it better than the average person. I'm close to 99% sure of that assessment. Most people are some combination of uneducated and lazy, so imperfect as the study is, I think they were trying to measure what happens in a real-world scenario, as opposed to a laboratory setting, whence the N's. I agree with most of your critiques, but I think simply pointing to N numbers is too simplistic.
not pointing to N numbers is untestable, though. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has run a "do you know how to wear a fucking mask" study. This one ain't it. Even the study's authors are unequivocal: WEAR A FUCKING MASK. So while Vinay Prasad can go "are we wearing the wrong masks" from a study that wasn't about type of mask, three of the actual authors of the study are up in the WaPo going Advertisement Our study showed conclusively that masks are a cost-effective way to reduce infections and demonstrated that a mask-promotion strategy can work. But our broader campaign to spread the word about our approach made clear that building large-scale coalitions across NGOs and governments is essential to converting that information into programs that reach millions. Until the vaccine supply increases — and possibly afterward — mask-wearing will remain essential worldwide. We all need to think hard about the best ways to marshal resources and apply the findings of this study to specific national and local contexts.For roughly half the 600 villages, we intervened by promoting mask usage: We gave every family in each village at least three masks — one per adult, cloth or surgical — and distributed masks in public spaces, including markets. We enlisted eminent local figures to explain why wearing masks can help slow viral transmission — providing imams with scripts to be read during religious services, for instance. Local leaders also modeled proper mask-wearing. We then sent observers into public spaces to note any changes in behavior.
Our research suggests that if we could get even a quarter more people wearing high-quality masks across Latin America, Africa and Asia, we could change the trajectory of the pandemic. Indeed, the reductions in infections we observed in Bangladesh with surgical masks, if extrapolated to the entire country over the past four months, could have saved nearly 25,000 lives.
Yeah, a pretty terrible interval of time to conduct this study in Bangladesh. From Nov. 2020 to April 2021, only about the last third of that interval (mid-March to May 1st) might give you some good statistics. I understand choosing Bangladesh because of how relatively inexpensive it is to pay people there, but there aren't many large countries with lower per capita infections, to date, and most of Bangladesh's cases are more recent than the study's time frame. Of course, Bangladesh is also assuredly not testing as much per capita, so this all just sucks. To me, the study says "Hey, our error bars are small enough to be on the same order of magnitude as the measurement for only one deduction we were trying to make". Muh physics says that a decent cloth mask should at least somewhat hinder the propagation of aerosols. I hated agreeing with Bill Nye (because he's notoriously a dick off camera), but it really is about as simple as holding out a candle in front of your masked face and trying to blow it out. Candle stays lit? Good. If you're emitting covid, it's got a better chance of falling closer to the floor instead of reaching someone else's face than if you were maskless. If covid is already in the air near your face, though, surely a cloth mask will do little, if anything, to filter it out. Accusing pro-maskers of virtue signaling isn't completely without merit, but at this point, masking is pretty much also vaccine signaling in the US. Ironically, the people masking up are probably more likely to also be vaccinated. edit: Careful ;). Not as bad as "Delta Air Lines", though.... a big delta to work with
Marginal Revolution described a sneering critique of "one of the worst studies i've ever seen in any field" as "Overstated, unreasonable, and too polemic" and your sober expression of reservations is a lot easier on the eyes. But polemic does not mean wrong, and the author makes some valid points: · Medpage Today observes that "The primary endpoint was reporting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 followed by a positive serology test to document SARS-CoV-2 infection." But this measure (aside from the unreliability of self-reported symptoms, and more than half the people with symptoms refusing the blood test) was not taken at the beginning of the study, so the before-and-after situation is open to interpretation. · When the study was mentioned in the Washington Post, it pointed out that "the intervention group was found to practice more social distancing, which may complicate the findings on masks." There were many other consequences of the interventions, but masks were given primary credit, with the usual hyperbolic headline stating "Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread". "Randomization of treated villages to no incentive, monetary incentive of 190 USD, or nonmonetary incentive. We announced that the monetary reward or the certificate would be awarded if village-level mask wearing among adults exceeded 75% 8-weeks after the intervention started." So some villages had something to lose if they didn't please the researchers. Has the spread of influenza-like illness changed so much since 2019 that we can't rely on the WHO's review of the evidence?I understand choosing Bangladesh because of how relatively inexpensive it is to pay people there
