I feel entitlement-vibes [LWN.net]

I feel entitlement-vibes

Posted Jan 30, 2025 10:29 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: I feel entitlement-vibes by nix
Parent article: FOSDEM keynote causes concerns

> particularly when the policy is as cheap and simple as "please wear a mask, particularly if you're showing disease symptoms".

Firstly, the evidence of efficacy of masks to protect against respiratory illness is not good. The best source of evidence in the field of medical interventions are the systematic analyses of the primary evidence base by the Cochrane Library, and the last 3 or so reviews they have done shows that - over the data from the primary studies - there is not evidence of efficacy (and the data is also poor). Tracy Greenhalgh (a prominent mask supporter), et al, would disagree with how the Cochrane review was framed, but their own systematic analysis came with the same result - no statistically significant protective effect.

Secondly, masks are not harm-free. They impede lip-reading for the hard of hearing (a family of member of mine found the pandemic very difficult for this reason - they rely on lip-reading). They create mountains of plastic waste. They lead to the inhalation of plastic micro-fibres.

So... efficacy: Questionable at best. No statistically significant effect in systematic reviews of the data. To be weighed against /definite/ harms. That can NOT be a basis for policies that /impose/ on people.

to post comments

I feel entitlement-vibes

Posted Jan 30, 2025 14:17 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> So... efficacy: Questionable at best. No statistically significant effect in systematic reviews of the data. To be weighed against /definite/ harms. That can NOT be a basis for policies that /impose/ on people.

Efficacy at WHAT? Protecting the wearer? Or protecting other people?

Part of the see-sawing in the UK was the belief by the medical profession that CoVid wasn't air-born - as a result of a half-remembered TB study from a century before, that explicitly said its conclusions were specific to TB and should NOT be used for anything else.

And the above WHAT question - masks do not protect the wearer! But the evidence that they help prevent an infected person from spreading it is apparently quite strong. If you're infected, you shouldn't go out. But if do go out you should wear a mask. Not for your sake, but for other peoples'. And the face shields apparently, while a very good comforter, are pure ineffective placebo at both tasks.

Cheers,
Wol

Stop this

Posted Jan 30, 2025 14:35 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Wol, you know that this is far off-topic for LWN. Why do we have to continue asking you to stop drawing out this kind of conversation? Don't do this, please.

I feel entitlement-vibes

Posted Jan 30, 2025 15:10 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

I am cognisant of the editors warnings, but I want to make a factual correction:

> the evidence that they help prevent an infected person from spreading it is apparently quite strong.

This is incorrect. We have primary R(C)?CT evidence for protective effect on wearers, and enough of it for Cochrane to have been able to conduct their systematic reviews - though, the body of data there is still, by their standards, poor. We do NOT (TTBOMK) have any substantive evidence for this novel "source control" theory (i.e., that even if they do not protect wearer, they protect others) for masks. I.e., we don't even have any RCT.

It stops here

Posted Jan 30, 2025 15:13 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

What part of "this is off-topic, please stop" is hard to understand here?

This article is now moderated; the bar for any new comments will be quite high.