You are not up to date. The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled and the biggest reviews of the literature strongly suggest that masks are not effective in preventing or slowing the spread of respiratory viruses. See below.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

The Cochrane Review is highly respected in the medical community. The authors, after a massive study, write the following:

We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Stop posting this all over the place. Masks clearly work, unless you like randos sneezing and coughing all over you. It catches all the phlegm.

Also, it prevents the smells of anti-maskers from reaching your nose. They can be pretty bad. You wear clothes over literally every other part of your body. Why do you think your face is different?

[–] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“Stop posting something that, while scientific and deeply rigorous, goes against my deep seated and unchangeable views. I can’t handle it with my weak, feeble mind!”

[–] Piers 6 points 1 year ago

It is scientific and rigorous. You've not understood it correctly and Cochrane have been explicit about the fact of that misunderstanding. They are not saying the things you think they are saying.

[–] DarthVader@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

You've been corrected multiple times with excerpts from the authors of the study you're parroting all over this thread. And yet you just keep posting the same shit, not acknowledging the people who are refuting your claims.

[–] TheBurlapBandit 1 points 1 year ago

I'm all for wearing masks when needed but that last point is dumb. Facial expressions are a huge part of human communication.

[–] Macros@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand people downvoting without correcting. This way this wrong information stands here, seemingly scientifically sound as a study is linked, contradicted only by votes and words.

Thank you @SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml for looking at the study and noting its limits here.

If somebody wants to check for himself I suggest to take a look at https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fvl-2021-0032 A study which looks at many different studies and metastudies.

To summarize:

Some studies exist that measured no benefits of masks under certain circumstances. E.g. only evaluating complete protection. But few also seem to be sound at first glance. E.g. one looking at effects of a mask requirement in Bexar County, TX.
Many of the negative result studies focus on cloth face masks, one even suggesting they increase risk.
Many studies and metastudies with generally more sound methods suggest mask are effective at preventing spread and limiting mortality.

Conclusion: Masks, excluding simple cloth masks, are likely quite effective. More research is needed.

[–] Chipthemonk@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your conclusion, in respect to the highly detailed Cochrane review, is extremely wrong. I don’t know how people like you come up with this logic. It’s bizarre. Cloth masks have been proven to be in effective time and time again and you keep promoting them. It’s ridiculous.

It’s not seemingly scientific, the study I linked is the best study we have and it came up with “masks don’t seem to help for reducing the spread of respiratory viruses.” Yet you spew the same bullshit we had at the beginning of the pandemic that wasn’t researched.

Luckily I live in a place where it will be highly unlikely for some ridiculous mandate. Hopefully you live in a place that will mandate this shit for the rest of your life so you can live in the dystopia you want to live in. Leave the rest of us alone.

[–] Macros@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems you have not read my post or the study in detail.

Indeed it seems that cloth masks are not very or even not effective. But, and that's a big but: FFP2/KN95 Masks seem to be quite effective.

The Cochrane study authors themselves note the low confidence they have in their results. The sample size is quite small (e.g. only 8407 people in summary over all studies they evaluated for FFP2 masks) They even got the result that handwashing has no benefits.

In Contrast the studies in the metastudy I linked work with far larger sample sizes.

I won't respond anymore after this comment as you seem agitated and resort to personal attacks which won't lead to a productive discussion. I hope you find a calmer moment to consider the evidence studies have gathered and overthink your position.

[–] Piers 1 points 1 year ago

Largely what the Cochrane report appears to say is that these studies aren't actually suitable to draw firm conclusions from (which is what all the talk of "evidence" are about. They mean that the studies they read don't have sufficient evidence to support their own claims and that while Cochrane can therefore tell us "study X had conclusion Y" they and we shouldn't assume that's actually correct as "study X" wasn't actually very good.)

[–] SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

"The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."

"Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators."

You failed to mention that part when you quoted the study. Good thing not everyone is a health care worker huh?

[–] Durotar@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled

Be kind and wear a mask until it's settled that they don't help. What we know for sure is that it's very hard to measure whether they're effective or not.

[–] Piers 4 points 1 year ago

FWIW, they definitely do work. The issue is that it's quite hard to produce effective studies to confirm if they work one way or another to point to to say "see, we've proved they work, now put one on!"

[–] Piers 5 points 1 year ago

In addition to Macros's comment explaining some of the details around what the specific claims of that report are, here is the statement from Cochrane explicitly saying that people have misunderstood the report in claiming it says masks aren't effective (and taking ownership of the fact that this is at least in part because of issues with how clearly the report communicates it's findings.)

https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I love this bit; "The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited."

So why, exactly, would you not err on the side of caution?

This makes no sense.

load more comments (55 replies)