Hacker News Reader

Comment by fbonetti | Hacker News Reader

[deleted]

When scientific evidence about a possible low-cost preventative measure is mixed, the upside would be saved lives, and there is virtually no downside to using that preventative measure, the scientifically best thing to do would be to temporarily use that preventative measure until there is better data.

I wear masks (N95 when I visit my elderly relatives) and am not against them. I plan on wearing masks until I have personally been vaccinated and test positive for antibodies. But not after that.

Where it gets weird is when 30% of people won't take a vaccine in the future, the vaccine is somewhere south of 70% effective, and none of the current phase 3 vaccines are seeking approval for use by children either. So what if COVID-19 sticks around for a while as a result. What if you can't tell who has had a vaccine and who hasn't?

Do you plan on wearing a mask everywhere for the next 5 years long after you've tested positive for antibodies? Because I don't.

I have hope that with so many research resources being directed to the problem, we'll have better vaccines, better cures, OR better management of symptoms so that there isn't a death risk or long term complications, well before 5 years. It really takes only one of the 3 to bring life back to normal.

There are downsides, like when the government threatens violence against its citizens for not complying with a preventative measure with mixed efficacy at best.

What government has threatened violence in regards to mask mandates?

I guess anything that is fined or outlaws is eventually "enforced by violence" but it's still a silly argument. If a store asks you to leave, and you don't, and the store calls the police to arrest you, you aren't being arrested for not wearing a mask. You're being arrested for not leaving when asked.

Do you really think the businesses are enforcing masks for the sake of public health? I encourage you to ask them -- 9 times out of 10 they will say they are fearful of the government fining them and shutting down their business. Trust me, I ask them every time they ask me to leave and it's always the same answer. If they resist the government, it will eventually result in violence.

There are dozens to hundreds of regulations governing the activities of retail establishments.. the requirement to enforce mask mandates is only one.

So are you not wearing a mask? If not, why not?

I'm curious: What about this quote strikes you as religious?

I'm a layman, but the citations at the end of this article seem compelling.

An article written by an expert in biology and disease and the director of the National Institutes of Health, which summarizes an a article that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and written by another accomplished medical doctor, isn't scientific enough for you.

Why? Because Sweden didn't mandate masks. First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries. Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.

Masks save lives (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-abou...

(2) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

(3) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7

(4) https://directorsblog.nih.gov/author/collinsfs/

> Because Sweden didn't mandate masks.

I can not read the parent post since it was deleted, but...

> First, Sweden had more deaths per capital than most countries.

Then again, most of those deaths occurred in care homes where the infection was spread by personnel who did not follow the personal protection mandates because they could not read the (Swedish) instructions. The number and outcome of infections outside of these facilities does not seem to be markedly different from that in states which have strong masking mandates, Italy being a good example of such.

> Second, even if it had very good numbers, that would not mean that masks aren't effective.

The fact of Swedish numbers - outside of the care facilities which I mentioned above - not being markedly worse than those in places with strong masking mandates does indicate that masking is not an effective way of limiting the spread of the disease, unless those places with strong masking mandates have other practices which lead to increased infection rates which level out the gains from masking compared to Swedish numbers.

There is no doubt that the correct use of the correct type of masks can help limit the spread of aerosol-borne infectious agents. The problem with masking mandates is that most people do not know how to correctly use masks, nor do most people have access to the correct type of mask. Re-using masks, handling potentially infected masks without care, storing used masks together with unused ones in coat pockets, there are many ways in which a masking mandate can negate any potential benefits from masks or even lead to a worse outcome. This is also one of the reasons for the different opinion on whether to implement masking mandates in different countries, e.g. Anders Tegnell (who leads the SARS2-campaign in Sweden) does not support a masking mandate. Fauci did not support masking but has changed his opinion on the matter for reasons as of yet unknown.

Masks do not save lives. Masks can save lives when of the correct type, used correctly. This is a big difference.

Agreed , as I posted earlier about masks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984527

This post links to an article showing masks don't work (N95 masks that are worn properly do work, though).

"The Most Masked European Countries Have the Biggest Coronavirus Surges"

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/most-masked-europea...

I'm unsure why you wouldn't consider wearing a mask to "be the right thing"

I don't think anybody is saying that masks are a panacea - that would be "everybody stay home until we have a working vaccine".

However, they seem a completely sensible thing that you can do that reduces transmission (so some extent at least), whilst allowing you to go about your normal life relatively unimpeded.

A bit like speed limits on the road - something legally enforceable that 'generally' reduces risk for us all. You can make exceptions as to why you don't feel you need to comply "There was nobody else on the road", "I'm a great driver", "My car has auto-braking" or "German autobahns don't have limits and are safer" - but most of the world has decided it's safer that most roads should have a limit.

There are other ways. I encourage you to research The Great Barrington Declaration.

I just did. Seems 'fine' - more lenient that I'd go, but I'd agree that interminable lock-down of low-risk people is a bad idea. But we don't have that. Doesn't mention masks at all.

Why someone would trust a libertarian think tank when it comes to epidemiology is beyond me. You'd like to know: what do the Koch brothers do? We know that they say, but do they take their own medicine?

Do you dismiss everything that disagrees with your political ideology?

No.

Although you never actually got back to me when I read your suggestion and pointed out they didn't say we shouldn't be wearing masks.

Surely you understand the meaning of "follow the money."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com