Reply to Is there a "post-truth" majority in the US?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Is there a "post-truth" majority in the US?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The gold standard Cochrane meta analysis of over 78 rigorous studies showed that mask mandates don’t work.  “The review’s authors found “little to no” evidence that masking at the population level reduced COVID infections, concluding that there is “uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” That result held when the researchers compared surgical masks with N95 masks, and when they compared surgical masks with nothing.” (Tayag)

If you haven’t been following the science, then maybe just sit this discussion out.[/quote]

The Cochrane study was only "gold standard" in terms of limiting itself to randomized controlled trials, it did not not capture real-world effectiveness as well as observational studies, and beyond that it has other flaws, for example it included pre-COVID studies of influenza, which has different transmission dynamics than COVID.  However even that said, the Cochrane review nonetheless still concluded that there was "low to moderate certainty" evidence that masks provide a small reduction in viral respiratory infections based on RCTs - which contradicts your suggestion that masks were totally ineffective and worthless.  Even the Cochrane study can't back that claim up.

[/quote]

No.

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

[/quote]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484132/

"The science of masking and its impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complicated. Observational studies present valuable data that warrant consideration in informing policy with a full understanding of the utility of mask use in a variety of settings. The Cochrane review did not include a large body of evidence, and that resulted in a biased conclusion. If all types of studies are considered, it is clear that well-fitting, properly used masks do have a measurable and significant effect on reducing transmission when properly worn by the vast majority of the population during times of high community transmission.3 Although the data in the two new studies included in the Cochrane update on masks are accurate, modeling studies correctly predict the small effect sizes that those studies observed; furthermore, the models predict that the effect size would be much larger with better masks more widely and correctly used. Taken together, these and other studies strongly indicate that masking is an effective intervention to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (source control) and should be considered to protect those most vulnerable from severe COVID-19 illness (wearer protection) as a general nonpharmaceutical intervention during times of high transmission."

When you go around citing scientific studies,  you have to consider their strengths and weaknesses.

One of the most important considerations with masking is whether they are properly worn.  Unless a study completely controls for this, it is hard to draw a strong conclusion.  The problem is not that masks don't work, it's that people don't always wear them properly.  The problem, as always, is with people.  [/quote]

Agreed, but passing mandates based on wishful thinking about how people should act is never going to work. The problem here is that the people promoting the mandates claimed they were supported by science, when in fact the opposite was true.

I don’t disagree that a properly fitted N95 on an adult works to contain Covid. I strongly disagree that masking toddlers did anything other than harm those poor children, but that was policy promulgated by Democratic policymakers. And this thread is about post-truth and lack of science promulgated by political parties. The fact is that Democrats promulgated harmful policies that were not grounded in science. OF COURSE the Republicans did and do as well (guns being the first that come to mind but also a lot of their Covid policies). That isn’t a question. What you and other PPs seem to believe is that Democrats are somehow immune to the same political failings with respect to science and truth as the Republicans, despite mounds of evidence otherwise. [/quote]

I am new to this discussion, but what is hard for me to fathom is that you are so hung up about toddlers masking.  It is such an odd thing to focus on this many years later.  It was a blip in their lives they don't even remember.  Did you have a toddler and trying to keep a mask on them drove you to an insane place?  You are still traumatized this many years later?

Mask mandates in medical facilities was a good idea.  Probably not so effective in other places, like a daycare, but we were facing a virus that killed many, many people and that we knew was transmitted through the air.  Just because it wasn't 100% effective, an impossible dream in any scenario, doesn't mean in wasn't worth reducing transmission.

Your blanket hatred of all Dems based on policies during a world-wide pandemic the likes of which we had never before seen in our lifetimes is...weird.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics