Post @post@qoto.org

@VGM

Sorry it's Sergei Lavrov, their Foreign Minister, that visited many African countries recently, that is basically the same of welcoming Putin.

@NonPlayableClown @feld @freemo

Indeed, the discriminating factor has always been the time spent indoors and the air exchange. It only takes a few minutes to compromise a room without air exchange. Masks at best make you earn what, a few seconds?

If people had modeled the diffusion of virions like that of odors from the beginning it would have been a thousand times better.

No need for rocket science indeed, just fart science.

@freemo

It's literally what the highlighted parts say:

https://qoto.org/@post/110310634909148296

There are three things in that abstract: 1) conclusions (highlighted by me) 2) details on what was evaluated and 3) mentions of the weakness of the evidence.

@freemo

The study is very clear when saying that *probably* the effectiveness of masks is close to zero. If they wanted to stress the need of more evidence to say anything like you are implying, they would just say that.

And you will never be able to influence my ideas with fear of what others think of me. In such a rotten world, being despised by the masses is a medal I gladly wear. People pass but ideas remain. Ask yourself if the people who in past centuries promoted the ideals that inspire you today were respected in their era.

Having said that, the fear that institutions are not loving parents towards citizens is understandable just as it is understandable that it leads to a suspension of rationality. And that's why I don't judge you or insult you and if I offended you as a person, it wasn't my intention.

@freemo @feld @chiasm

Again, the conclusions are the ones I highlighted, with weak evidence.

I should had pointed out from the beginning that for me the best we can have on this matter is this review by Cochrane but it is a communication mistake by me, I should know that people would pick everything they can just to contradict me.

My point has always been that making masks mandatory was criminal because there were no evidence of their effectiveness. Also people were made to believe masks were very important to the point of physically attack even who didn't wear them correctly.

Finally you admitted that there is no evidence in favour of masks and that is enough for me. Before, you insisted in saying that there are also studies in favour implying it was enough to justify such crimes.

You can accuse me of being a "conspiracy theorist" as much as you want, I don't care. I never mentioned any conspiracy. Thinking there must be a conspiracy to explain certain crimes is induced by an ideology called positivism.

You should instead ask yourself if people denoucing mass surveillance before Snowden deserved to be called "conspiracy theorists".

You should ask yourself if journalists today are free to report such crimes since what is happening to Julian Assange for revealing crimes by US army in Iraq and more.

And your attack on me is a way of admitting that you have no more arguments on the matter.

Today I eroded another piece of rhetoric: starting today you won't be able to say anymore "but there are also studies that say the opposite" and that's enough for me, for today.

@freemo @feld @chiasm

There are not parts that disagree with me, they said that effectiveness of masks is close to zero but the evidence is weak.

This means that they valued studies against masks more than the one in favour of them and it was evident if you actually read the studies instead of just saying "there are also studies that say the opposite".

But they also pointed out that the ones against masks don't meet their requirements for strong evidence and I think this will never be the case since it is hard to produce such evidence.

Instead of accusing others of not reading the studies, admit that I was right when I told you that the studies against masks were better than the ones in favour of them.

@freemo @feld @chiasm

Dude, a **systematic review** by Cochrane is **superior** to a single study by definition.

@chiasm @freemo @feld

I value your experience and I have no doubt it is genuine. What I am saying is that what many would consider an evidence it is not for Cochrane.

The entire pharmaceutical industry is based on weak evidence and that is why organizations like Cochrane exist.

People who comment here as if Cochrane did just another study and not a systematic review of 78 studies probably don't realize how many drugs are currently in the market without the strong evidence they are requiring now against masks.

@freemo @feld @chiasm

It depends, do you know how difficult it is for Cochrane to say that there is strong evidence? Context matters.

@freemo @chiasm @feld

> Oh and also just look at the parts that you highlighted and ignore the parts you dont highlight where it says things like “low‐certainty evidence”.

The point was indeed stressing the conclusions and show how your "it says there is not enough evidence" doesn't reflet at all the abstract. The one cherry-picking was you and it is clear since if you had to highlight those parts they would be way less than my highlights.

@feld @chiasm @freemo

This is by an organization focused on evidence-based medicine, in this context they require very strong evidence to assert something, otherwise they will use these "probably".

Evidently you can't interpret the results in context, so you just focus on wording in the abstract.

@freemo @chiasm @feld

You are clearly not used to this kind of papers, it is normal to use cautious sentences to this extent and you should focus on the results instead:

"We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). **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). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. **The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection** (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).

**One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients."**

@freemo @feld

It doesn't say so.

@feld @freemo

> How does the virus spread? Mostly by riding on tiny water droplets coming out of your mouth and nose, which the mask catches by absorption

This is a model that may makes sense but in the end it leads to the wrong conclusions, as proved by the systematic review by Cochrane.

> Perfect is the enemy of good.

Read the review: the effectiveness of masks is close to zero, not 90%, nor 50% and nor 10% as you seem to imply.

@freemo @feld

Because it is a systematic review by Cochrane that in this field usually mean "this is the state of the art at the moment".

Having studies pointing to the opposite is normal. I have read both those in favor of masks and those against and have drawn my conclusions.

Systematic reviews exist precisely to bring order. And this one, from the most renowned organization of evidence-based medicine, confirms my conclusions at 100%.

From now on, saying "there are also studies that say the opposite about masks" is ideological, rhetorical and anti-scientific.

✅ Scientific literature denies the effectiveness of lockdowns
✅ Scientific literature denies the effectiveness of masks
🕐 Scientific literature denies the effectiveness of Covid vaccines

It's a matter of time...

@feld @freemo

Masks with close to zero efficacy according to a systematic review of 78 studies by Cochrane:

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6