Masks with close to zero efficacy according to a systematic review of 78 studies by Cochrane:
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...
🇳🇱
Where do you get thst from.. their original version quite clesrly states what i said. Ut people misinterprited what they said to erroneously claim they meant what you said.. so they are changing the wording to be more explicit so people like you dont try and put words in their mouth like you did.
The ironic thibg is the actual wording of the reciew, whicb is usmnarized to "we dont have good studies to draw any solid conclusions about the effectiveness of masks" is itself an antimasker win. But by trying to manipulate the study and claiming it shows masks have 0 effectiveness is so blatantly dishonest tbat you took sometbing tbat could have been a win and instead just used it to discredit yourself.
Nice reply, in the meanwhile here there is a concept for adults:
The fundamental issue here is that you are severely affected by positivism and the Lancetgate is the most famous recent example of corruption in scientific journals.
It doesn't matter the example, you are refusing to integrate your vision of the world with well known facts and I already mentioned some, like Snowden and Assange's revelations and what is happening to them.
This is why your "I can email the author" is naive, to be kind: you are acting like you never heard of so called soft power.
So don't you think that mailing the authors now that they were scolded is naive? Why don't you just read the whole review and judge by yourself?
Months ago I said to you that studies in favour of masks were garbage and that you can't just use them to imply a symmetry with the ones against masks.
Later a systematic review showed exactly that by concluding masks' effectiveness is *probably* near zero with "moderate evidence".
This is what the review says, it doesn't say "we have no idea, it's like flipping a coin".
> "For Nye, power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes you want. There are several ways one can achieve this: one can coerce others with threats; one can induce them with payments; or one can attract and co-opt them to want what one wants. This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes one wants – co-opts people rather than coerces them."
From the Wikipedia article on Soft power I liked a few messages ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
@post @freemo @feld your point is flawed for many reasons:
- first the summary of evidence of non homogeneous and low quality studies doesn't give you an increased quality of evidence, this is the foundation of MAs and they knew, so they state quite clearly what we can say and what we can not with those results
- second, It seems that you miss the idea behind hypothesis testing and you are doing one of the biggest mistake in biostat: absence of proofs is not a proof itself
I think common sense will lead most to realize masks are probably useful for many but not all airbornse diseases. There are reasonable ways to reason about it where masks could even cause a greater soread of some diseases, maybe, when used by the general public and used improperly (whicb lets face it is most people).
That said i think we can all agree we just dont have good studies that can show it was effective in the case of covid, but we do t have evidence it was ineffective either.
@vixxo @post @freemo @feld Yeah I'm sure that's true; just like before administering a flu test one always puts on n95 respirators/etc. And gets trained to do it properly. I think it's clear that is helpful in reducing spread.
That doesn't mean surgical masks or cloth masks protect against these diseases, or me re-using a surgical mask that I leave in my car for a few days is at all a good idea.
@ech @post @freemo @feld The only 2/78 studies included in that MA about masks and covid shows masks work. They also included a Danish paper that apparently ignore the bidirectional cover from masks. Moreover the whole analysis is about policies and they clearly state about adherence. A bad application of a policy doesn't prove it doesn't work. @post here is mixing up on topics to avoid the specific issues. That way to claim proofs could demonstrate everything.
Except the vaccines do work, what you mean to say (if your being accurate, which you probably arent) is they dont work as well as the vaccines we are used to, they behave more like flu vaccines do, reducing risk significantly and having that protection fade with time, and without being able to establish a strong herd immunity as easily as with other vaccines (and perhaps not at all).
While it is rare that it will completely eradicate a disease, this is compelte nonsense. smallpox was eradicated through vaccines. We also have plenty of epidemics that have been ended and the disease only exists in small numbers now in vaccinated regions, polio is a good example of that.
You just go farther and farther into crazy town with your comments dude... how long before you start claiming no virus has ever been isolated and the earth is flat too?
Virions cannot be isolated physically but are believed to cause disease by inference and I recognize that evidence. If you stop misusing the term "isolate" maybe people would stop emphasizing that they can't be isolated as if that would make a big difference. The misunderstanding is caused by those who use this improper term.
This right here, anti-vax sentiment that seems to be suggestive of all vaccines, is the line.. This is so blantantly "flat earth" level anti-science that I think it disqualifies you from a presence on a STEM instance. As you've seen we have a **huge** tolerance for discussing topics and criticism even in rather heated topics (like COVID) that would have gotten you suspended much sooner from any other instance. But full on anti9-vax thinking no vaccines work, dont end pandemics, herd immunity is some construct that doesnt exist... no virus has ever been isolated, etc etc.... sorry but this has now crossed the line for us.
I will discuss with the other moderators for a sanity check ( @trinsec @khird
) but I'd suggest you migrate to another server which I think you should have the right to do (and you cant once suspended)... that sort of extreme anti-scientific sentiment has no place on a STEM server.
@freemo @trinsec @khird @vixxo @ech @feld
I am a STEM professional and graduated. You're the one who accepted the stereotype that a dissident must be illiterate.
I can argue my positions and even if I don't convince you, you must respect them. Otherwise you are promoting ideologies like scientism which make science a religion. Instead science is based on arguments, not on dogmatic discussion fences emotionally positioned and dependent on the historical moment and current mainstream notions.
@post When your arguments are completely non-sensical, very clearly bioased, andyou are clearly trying to sell a non-science based agenda... no none of thaqt is simply an argument where you fail to convince me.
I have let you stay on this server for a LONG time skirting that line and have never once even threatened a suspend specifically because I do agree, in general, that debate on topics no matter how heated is welcome.
But when it crosses to the point of flat-earth sort of mentality, yea.
When I review your posts I see nothing to suggest you have expertise in the topics you post, or are trying to learn. almost all your posts on any topic are non-sensicval, contradicts elementary things that are well established without justifying it remotely. Even attempts to engage with you to reach a better level of understanding is riddles with fundementally anti-science rhetoric as we just went throguh "HEre is a cochrain review, i picked it because its one of the best most respected publications and agrees with me... oh except the whole conclusion which completely disagrees with me" nonsense... this isnt opinion or arguing, its just clear, blatenet and even intentional bias... even once the publication you citesd as the most respectable one possible explicitly made a comment telling you you were wrong then you blamed them of not being credible.... this sort of discourse is notof a STEM nature or academic at all... its just a flat-earth debate "everything that disagrees with me is a conspiracy!"
Yea this isnt the instance for that, please find another one.
Well, I just didn't find many people here from my field, except maybe software development, DevOps and networking and indeed I sometimes discuss those.
I rarely start a discussion with a post of mine, I comment what others say and many people here on the Fediverse share what I think is propaganda, so it is natural for me to challenge them into arguing their positions instead of just repeating what they heard.
I understand that my ideas trigger your desire to dispute them and that doing so with actual arguments isn't worth your time, so you get emotional to the point of using rethoric and even psychological pressure.
You are placing a limit on freedom of thought after having heralded it, no matter what turn of phrase you use to justify it.
This is my last post on this instance. If I find some other instance of defenders of freedom of thought that I think will be worth provoking with my ideas, I'll move on.
If you have nothing to be ashamed of, don't delete these threads but leave them for future reference and transparency.
@post Best of luck to you finding that new instance.
> We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
Thanks, this explain that abstract, it is the usual patch censorship
@post
There are also quite a few studies that conclude masks **are** effective.
Of all the studies out there, many of which disagree with your statement, what compelled you to pick this one over the others?
@feld