Imagine if we relied on “personal responsibility” instead of the law to combat other public health issues like drunk driving. No rules--just “you do you”. If you're comfortable driving drunk and wish to take the risk, go ahead and do it--why worry yourself with harming anyone else?
Wait, that doesn't work? Then why do maskless conferences, flights, and events work at a time when we know #COVID19 risks are rising. Don't take personal responsibility; take public responsibility. #WearAMask
I'm sorry but there is scientific evidence (and was there before #Covid19 ) that masks don't help against coronaviruses spreading (as expected from physics).
I added two more recent studies to the list in my timeline just yesterday.
Also, recently in Italy a judge sentenced against some of these anti-covid measures, stressing that no obligation can be imposed just because of *presumed* risk (something that doesn't apply for driving drunk, where the risk is certain). At least not in Italy.
So please consider revisiting what you took for granted, thank you.
https://qoto.org/@post/109655921887846230
https://qoto.org/@post/109655906578045257
Other studies:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
I can go on for a while...
@post @familydoctor I'm confused. The first study you shared that I clicked found "Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from symptomatic individuals." Weren't you suggesting the opposite?
You meant the last one.
Welcome to scientific studies: you need to read them, not stopping at abstract; you must take into accounts the methods, the sample, etc and understand for yourself whether they provide weak or strong evidence.
That paper also says: "There was a significant reduction by wearing face masks to 1 of 27 (4%) in detection of influenza virus in respiratory droplets, but no significant reduction in detection in aerosols (Table 1b)."
Isn't this confusing? It's always like this with scientific studies. Check the samples in this study and in the others and draw your own conclusions.
@post @familydoctor I'm not going to convince you, but since you entered my thread, I think it's important people see the opposite. You've clearly done research, which means you are aware there are plenty of studies that show masks work, and you cherrypicked the ones that told the story you wanted.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.13080
One can find MORE studies that say masks work than don't. I still urge people toward caution.
As I said, I have read them all and took into account the methods to form my conclusion.
If you stop at the abstracts, you can find everything and its opposite.
You are not discovering anything new, it has always been like this, you are just showing that you are unfamiliar with scientific publications.
You accuse me of cherrypicking, but you yourself noticed how in one of the studies I shared, researchers drew the opposite conclusion.
So go for a consistent attack if you have to.
@post @familydoctor Your idea of an "attack" maybe needs to be adjusted. I literally made the point it's possible to cherrypick studies one way or the other. Bottom line: You can choose to believe what you want, but people I trust in public health continue to suggest masks work, and there's evidence to support it. In the end, billions may suffer from chronic health impairments because of COVID. I would rather take the chance masks work than that they don't--it's such a minor inconvenience.
My best friends were physicians. I know exactly what the knowledge of physicians is focused on and it does not include the basic statistical tools to judge the studies. You can verify this by yourself by simply asking them how they judge the quality of a study.
On the other hand, the nanoparticles physicist who introduced the term "nanopathologies" (Dr. Maria Antonietta Gatti) has been working for years on a filter against nanoparticles (same order of magnitude as viruses) and has always stated that blocking viruses with masks is nonsense.
I urge people to read all the studies on their own and ignore researchers' conclusions and focus on methods and statistical relevance instead. Then draw your own conclusion.
I don't believe in anything, I aim to have the means to judge independently. Note that blind trust in institutions (including "experts") is an ideology called positivism that has allowed enormous crimes in the history of humanity.
P.S. there are tons of studies on the harms of mask wearing, so your preventative approach needs to be reviewed.
