Hacker News Reader

> This claim is patently false. [...] real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due

"Patently false" is vastly different to "unsubstantiated."

In addition, here is an entire page of studies substantiating mask efficacy: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing.

No one is doubting mask efficacy, just their degree of efficacy. All of the studies shown do not justify mandating the use of cloth or disposable masks outdoors, or even indoors. They all show that people should be wearing M95s or better if they want substantive protection.

What you're suggesting is akin to wearing gloves in public - which while probably somewhat safer, is not really a key driver of stopping spread.

What's worrying is that not only are your arguments heavily flawed, but we can extrapolate 99% of your political views just by looking at one of your scientific takes. For anyone wondering, no I'm not a Republican.

> The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing.

That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and one which flies in the face of reason and reality.

It's widely known that basic and low-effort protective measures such as social distancing, washing hands and wearing facial masks, are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19 and other airborne respiratory diseases. The point was never that these basic, low-effort measures are not full-proof.

The whole point is that they are effective, they are demonstrably effective, and they require little to no effort to implement.

For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.

It's safe outdoors, masks or not. You can wear a mask if you want to, but it won't make a difference.

> For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.

I don't know about other "anti-maskers," but for me, it's about the precautionary principle [1]. If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits, and before we decide, collectively, to change our habits, maybe we should think hard about those downsides.

Yes, there are downsides to masks: reduced oxygen, keeping captured bacteria close to your face for long periods, etc., made worse by the fact that people, by and large, do not rotate or clean their masks properly. In other words, experiments in a lab that study the effectiveness of masks when used properly do not match the reality of how people actually use masks.

In other words, in science, all factors matter. [2] And pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...

> If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits

Pray tell, what are those collosal downsides that render such an effortless thing like wearing a mask in public such a prohibitively costly endeavor?

We don't know. That's why the Precautionary Principle is so important. It is built on the assumption of "We don't know, and we don't know what we don't know, so we had better be cautious."

> We don't know.

Bullshit. People have been wearing protective equipment such as masks for decades, and the negative effects are none.

The anti-maskers' irrational tirade about even low-effort/high-reward protective measures that are demonstrably safe and terribly trivial to pull off is the key factor in this pandemic taking so long to just die off, and you should be ashamed of yourself for contributing to this state of affairs.

> People have been wearing protective equipment such as masks for decades, and the negative effects are none.

Have you yourself seen studies that say the negative effects are none? If so, point me to them; I've only found a few, and they all seemed flawed.

> you should be ashamed of yourself for contributing to this state of affairs.

I have no shame in defending true science against propaganda.

[1] is a blog post I wrote about masks and carbon dioxide, where I wrote a model and ran it on various parameters. The net result was always the same: there was half oxygen and half carbon dioxide behind the mask.

Dr. Anthony Fauci knew that masks were ineffective. [2]

The CDC did a study that failed to show that masks were effective. [3]

Another study showed that masks did not work. [4]

There is a review of older papers concerning masks [5] as well as a follow-up. [6] (Though I do not know the political bent of that website; the review may be cherry picked.)

In other words, there is evidence that masks don't work and that there are downsides. If masks reduce oxygen, which makes us more vulnerable to disease, and they don't work, it's possible that the masks actually made things worse, by making us more vulnerable while doing nothing.

That is why I will never feel shame for my "irrational tirade" because it's not a tirade, and it's not irrational.

[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/masks-and-carbon-dioxide/

[2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fauci-said-masks-were-not-...

[3]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf

[4]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v...

[5]: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-...

[6]: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/still-no-conclusive-evid...

> The net result was always the same: there was half oxygen and half carbon dioxide behind the mask.

Fascinating. Oxygen normally only makes up 21% of breathable air - it would seem that masks are increasing oxygen levels. In addition, where is your null hypothesis test?

The model only tests how oxygen and carbon dioxide replace each other, not nitrogen. So 50% of the 21% is oxygen, the other 50% is carbon dioxide.

Of course, it could be even worse, that carbon dioxide starts replacing the nitrogen behind the mask. More testing needed.

10% CO2 (> 40000ppm) is lethal. Have I been brainwashed to ignore the people dropping dead on the streets?

The carbon dioxide is only replaced in the volume behind the mask. If that is not a big volume compared to a full breath (and it isn't), then the carbon dioxide you're breathing in isn't 10%. It's (v_mask * 0.21 * 0.5)/V, where v_mask is the volume behind the mask, and V is the full volume of a breath.

> political views

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

The fact people study the effectiveness of masks rules out your point. Suggesting it is some method to enforce conformity is the step where it derails into conspiracy theory tier rambling and fear mongering.

Yes it is a valid question, are masks effective, and as you actually point out, people study it. But somehow that doesn’t count to you, and that is somehow being censored?

Masks do not have to protect everyone perfectly to have an effect. If it reduces the spread in a statistically significant manner over the entire population that is enough. Dampens chains of transmission and growth. Seems fairly basic that putting a barrier to catch or deflect particles is not a bad idea. I think if it reduces transmission even by 10% it’s worth it. Yes maybe it’s not perfect, but I think the studies suggest it does help to some small extent. Combine that with vaccination, distancing, habits you end up beating covid.

Normal people are not experts in statistics and virology. I think that the medias job is to try and promote and distill what the current consensus of the experts is. You want society to go along with it. We should try and follow their advice. Are there mistakes? Yes. As we get new information, the model changes. That is science. Does this need to be a disclaimer? Maybe.

Recently however many people are just radicalised and take an expert position as some sort of conspiracy. They want to question things that they know nothing about, and it doesn’t end up been done constructively in good faith.

Society by large doesn’t seem equipped at the moment to handle and properly discuss these issues. Maybe it doesn’t even have. Seems like specialisation is what we do, so we should go along with experts for the most part.

If you point out all the times where experts were wrong, well the fact that over time they were found out and advice was changed, is actually a sign that the system works. Maybe unfortunate for some individuals but for society as a whole, progress is made.

Assuming that if masks reduce the transmission by 10% is automatically worth it is not a good idea because we need to know the downsides of masks and how bad those downsides are.

In science, all factors matter, not just efficacy. [1]

[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...

> Even though M95 masks were found to be beneficial against respiratory viruses (...)

You're contradicting your claim.

> It seems that pro-maskers vastly overestimate the efficacy of mask wearing (...)

You're desperately trying to use red herrings and unsubstantiated accusations to move the goal post, specially after already admitting that indeed you are fully aware that wearing a mask are beneficial against respiratory viruses.

No one claimed masks are full proof protection against COVID.

The whole point is that, and it always been, that masks are a low effort method to effectively (albeit not perfect) mitigate how the virus spreads.

Moreover, the main point of the mask was never to stop us from contracting COVID. It's effect to lower the chances of contracting the disease are nice-to-have. The whole point is that wearing a mask effectively reduces the odds of carriers (asymptomatic or not) of unwittingly spreading the disease. It is known that COVID spreads through droplets expelled by carriers through their airways, and placing a mask in front of their airways stops them from spreading by acting as a filter.

This is not hard to understand. Low-effort, high-reward.