Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkerside | Hacker News Reader

That link doesn't advise against mask wearing. I'd recommend you revise your summary or indicate where in the article you are reading that.

> They are therefore not a substitute for basic hygiene measures and physical distancing, where possible and practical.

That was the strongest wording "against" that I saw. And that is the typical "no evidence" disclaimer, not an evidence of no proof or evidence of harm.

Your post is misleading. It takes a bulletin from a country where COVID had been essentially eliminated, and implied that it's guidelines are appropriate for others where infection is rampant.

View on HN

It's all contained in the sources provided in the footnotes of the page:

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/revi...

But, listen, if you have better information, I'm all ears. The whole point is to be directed by science, and right now, you're not going to find hard science, i.e., RCTs, to support the prevailing policies.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

The problem with pointing to New Zealand for information is they never had widespread community transmission. Australia had the same no mask policy until such a point that they had community transmission and now they are forcing masks where most transmission is occurring.

From the page you link > This advice on use of face masks in the community will be updated if new evidence or guidance from the World Health Organization emerges, or we see a change in COVID-19 disease patterns in New Zealand (for example, increasing community transmission).

So they are simply not advocating masks due to low community transmission.

I understand the counterargument to using NZ. I'm saying you can't have it both ways. That is just a side effect, anyway.

My main counter claim to the top-level comment is that the messaging is not uniform.

As an example, I've pointed out that policy differs between neighboring areas, and, indeed, policy differs from science.

There is an entire section of the attached material under the heading "Risks and pitfalls." I didn't write it, so forgive me if I'm not too upset that people don't like it.

I think the message is uniform at this point that, if you are in a COVID hot zone, you should be wearing a mask. Claiming that is not the case and providing irrelevant examples can rightly be met with anger because it undermines the uniformity of that message.

EDIT: For the record, I'm not angry :)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm

Tl;dr: When both parties wear marks, both cloth and N95 masks are likely sufficient for mitigating infections in enclosed spaces.

There will likely be no RCT (randomized controlled trials) for infection patterns. As it‘s unethical to expose patients to a likely infection (the control arm without masks) with a potentially deadly virus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com