Danish study shows no significant reduction of Covid-19 in wearers of surgical masks

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to objectively read those reviews, then it might be productive to discuss and possibly look at individual articles in that context. Without doing so, this is just picking and choosing specific studies to support a particular point.

So why did you pick and choose one specific study to start your thread with?

The ineffectiveness of masks and social distancing can be seen in the way that every country is seeing the same rates of spread of COVID...oh wait, no, the US turns out to be an enormous viral dumpster fire compared to the rest of the developed world. I wonder why.

There are several "smart on paper" scientists arguing that climate change doesn't exist, or that vaccines cause autism, etc etc. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them or ignore the overwhelming majority who argue otherwise.
 
TBH I don't see this ending until the vaccine is widely available. Public cooperation is probably as good as it's going to get.

I wouldn't blame mistrust of science as much as mistrust of and anger towards public officials who treat "following the science" like it's a religion.
 
TBH I don't see this ending until the vaccine is widely available. Public cooperation is probably as good as it's going to get.

I wouldn't blame mistrust of science as much as mistrust of and anger towards public officials who treat "following the science" like it's a religion.
Which sounds worse? Following the science or Following The Leader?
 
As an aside, I've never really liked the phrase "the science." The use of the article "the" makes a singularity the only possible interpretation of data, and that's just not the way science works. The people consistently using that phrase ... "the science"... are almost always the very same people completely closed, i.e., intolerant and uninclusive, of any viewpoints other than their own, whether or not discussions involve scientific data, religious beliefs, or political thought. Scientific research, hypothesizing, exploration, and search for rational and truthful explanation of physical happenings and structures is fascinating, beautiful, incredibly useful, and a truly worthwhile human pursuit. Claiming that there is a "THE science" that completely explains phenomena about which questions still remain ... and YES, unequivocally, questions still remain about COVID, about climate change (remember when it was "global warming," but then it wasn't and it became "climate change" to fit "the science" which, strangely, turned out to not quite be accurate enough to be "THE science?"), about the origin of the universe, about all kinds of things. Soooo... no. There is no "the science," only science. Maybe "the data," which is REALLY what they are referring to, but then that would leave room for interpretation of the data, and a lot of these folks aren't interested in room for interpretation other than their own. .... their version of "the science," which, loosely translated, really means, "the only opinion we will accept."

I've heard people say, "the jazz," as in, "do you like the jazz music?" ... same thing... same wrong. There is no "THE jazz," just jazz...all kinds of it.

Following the science and following the leader sound equally bad to me. I'd like to gather as much information as I can from reliable sources, then be allowed to follow my own informed rational thought processes.
 
So why did you pick and choose one specific study to start your thread with?

The ineffectiveness of masks and social distancing can be seen in the way that every country is seeing the same rates of spread of COVID...oh wait, no, the US turns out to be an enormous viral dumpster fire compared to the rest of the developed world. I wonder why.

There are several "smart on paper" scientists arguing that climate change doesn't exist, or that vaccines cause autism, etc etc. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them or ignore the overwhelming majority who argue otherwise.

Because it is a new study that is not included in those prior reviews and should be added to the overall evidence. I am happy to discuss the new Danish study for that reason, but it does have to be also integrated with the totality of the other literature.

It is truly not the way to get to the scientific truth of this to continue citing this example or that one study and ignore everything else. Read the reviews if you actually want to understand. Otherwise it is just a form of entertainment for people here on PoA.

It is also not the way to get to the truth to treat scientific questions like some sort of opinion poll and worry about what “the majority” of scientists think. That is just the argument from authority. One needs to objectively evaluate the evidence and data, considered in its totality, especially with these types of questions where there is a lot of evidence on both sides of the issue.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the studies that needs to considered objectively in the context of all the other studies out there. There are over 100 now. The scientific reviews try to do this. And as summarized on my medical interest page, they are overall about 50/50 on the efficacy of the general public being told to wear masks to slow the spread of Covid-19. And that is prior to the recent Danish study which I started this thread with.

If you want to objectively read those reviews, then it might be productive to discuss and possibly look at individual articles in that context. Without doing so, this is just picking and choosing specific studies to support a particular point.

There is lots of evidence on both sides of this issue, the trick in science is objectively evaluating the totality of the evidence in light of each items strengths and weaknesses. Doing that for over 100 articles is a lot of work and not likely the sort of thing most posters here are inclined to do. That is why I suggest first objectively reading the reviews.
I understand that this is a stressful time, and it would be amazing if we could just make the pandemic go away with with logic tricks and trying to find some way to cast doubt on everything, but while it might confuse a few people, it can't, sadly, confuse the actual disease. We'll have to live through this pandemic whether we believe in it or not — it doesn't play favourites.
 
Because it is a new study that is not included in those prior reviews and should be added to the overall evidence. I am happy to discuss the new Danish study for that reason, but it does have to be also integrated with the totality of the other literature.
So now that there is that new study I posted from the weekly CDC reviews (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm), that is the newest study and it states that mask mandates are effective control measures. Shouldn't you change the title to reflect the latest study? Just like you titled this thread - not to reflect the 50/50 split that you have seen in studies, but to spin the topic to one side vs. the other. How about "Countywide mask mandates appear to have contributed to the mitigation of COVID-19 transmission in mandated counties". That is only fair. Change the thread title.
 
Here’s a new report:

“The governor of Kansas issued an executive order requiring wearing masks in public spaces, effective July 3, 2020, which was subject to county authority to opt out. After July 3, COVID-19 incidence decreased in 24 counties with mask mandates but continued to increase in 81 counties without mask mandates.”

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm
 
So now that there is that new study I posted from the weekly CDC reviews (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947e2.htm), that is the newest study and it states that mask mandates are effective control measures. Shouldn't you change the title to reflect the latest study? Just like you titled this thread - not to reflect the 50/50 split that you have seen in studies, but to spin the topic to one side vs. the other. How about "Countywide mask mandates appear to have contributed to the mitigation of COVID-19 transmission in mandated counties". That is only fair. Change the thread title.

Is that a peer-reviewed publication? No.

After you have read the reviews and objectively considered them it might be interesting to discuss new studies, and perhaps even some items like this that are from reputable sources, but not peer-reviewed. Until then, not.
 
I understand that this is a stressful time, and it would be amazing if we could just make the pandemic go away with with logic tricks and trying to find some way to cast doubt on everything, but while it might confuse a few people, it can't, sadly, confuse the actual disease. We'll have to live through this pandemic whether we believe in it or not — it doesn't play favourites.
There is no doubt that everyone participating in this discussion “believes” in the virus ... whatever the hell that means. Nice way to bow out of a meaningful dialogue when you have nothing worthwhile to say in response to @PeterNSteinmetz

Do you always take a moral high ground and insult people when they do not agree with you regarding public policy issues or is that something you do special just for us?
 
Thread locked, pending MC review.

Edit: The thread will remain closed per MC vote, as this discussion has turned into nothing but a bickering match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top