Why is it so hard for public officials to learn from past experiences, and always repeat the same mistakes?
That alone is almost enough to discount it right there.
Even studies done only 50 years ago are often discounted by scientists today because of their poor quality and lack of rigor compared to today's studies. A study done 100 years ago is likely to be even worse.
But even were it not, we have to ask:
- What study?
- Was it published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal?
- How large was the study?
- Was it double-blind?
- Were the results statistically significant?
When even very recent studies are mentioned on HN, they're often torn apart for not having met one or more of these and other criteria.
Yet at other times mere mention of "a study", some anonymous study done 100 years ago, published who knows where, of completely unknown quality is supposed to be given credence just because it's "a study"?
Average home was about 5 people, now its about 2.5. US has about 8 times more households than back then. Back then, there were 9 areas that had population between 500k-1 million. Now, theres about 40 in that category and about 40 in above 1 million category.
Why take a look at this data? Because it shows you what happened - less people inside, more people outside. There are more external centres of congregation than we had before - more malls with more people, more bars, more shops. The chances are you will encounter 5-10 times more people than back then on your way to the store, and thats a low guesstimate.
Edit: My point is, masks outside are now way more necessary than in 1919 when in mid-high populated areas.
The paragraph in the article immediately after the one you quote says:
"However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies."
Take your pick:
> "However, according to medical historians, the decline in deaths from influenza in San Francisco can be partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies."
From a social science piece published in May 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820....
The full quote is "Yet in cities like San Francisco, the decline in deaths from influenza was partly attributed to the mandatory mask-wearing policies." It contains no further attribution or references.
> "A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic, while observing that a likely reason for their ineffectiveness was that masks were worn outdoors and not inside in gatherings when conditions for transmission would be greatest. It also noted that most masks were improperly constructed of inadequate materials."
Comes from an actual medical study by the California Board of Health, published in 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&vi...
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Perhaps useful to other people, but that's just speculation.
Our mandates are focused on indoor gatherings, and we have access to high quality masks.