Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin_nisbet | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure if I should interpret this as masks are an ineffective tool, or more narrowly that combined with other efforts it's unclear what the impact was since there's a large degree of opinion on the matter compared to data with a higher standard of a peer reviewed double blind study.

With masks being such a hot topic in certain regions, it would seem unreasonable to conclude that there is only correlation available.

The opinion I'm referring to and cited is in line with this one (just did a quick google search, I don't remember the original source of my assertion): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200624082657.h...

There appear to be a number of smaller studies available as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19... which if cloth masks are effective it would seem to me to be reasonable to extend this to rate of adoption and a contributing factor.

View on HN

Note that I've edited my comment to better reflect my thoughts (probably since you wrote this).

I don't think you should take this one paper as some kind of definitive rebuttal on masks. You should interpret it as a reasonable summary of current evidence, as well as a not-terrible analysis of US states that poses some serious challenges to the effectiveness of mask mandates.

That said, an editorial/letter in science daily is not a rebuttal, and wikipedia is useless for politically sensitive questions. There are many papers on both sides of the issue, and it's easy to cherry-pick a set that support any particular position.

Is it the end of the discussion? No. But It's not as cut-and-dried as people make it seem. The evidence base for masks is very low-quality. The issue became political, and as with all things political today, nuance and reason were tossed out the window.

> Regions with an early interest in face masks had milder COVID-19 epidemics, according to a new letter-to-the-editor published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. (the source of the Science Daily article: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1188...)

I don't see how this is much less scientific than the non-peer-reviewed paper you posted.

A letter to an editor is not peer reviewed. It is a letter from a reader.

Both of the papers I linked to are either peer reviewed, or a pre-print in the process of review.

> a pre-print in the process of review.

So not reviewed yet.

My point is that both a preprint and a letter to the editors have not gone through a rigorous review. Preprints might be submitted for peer-review but that's no guarantee that it will be published in a reputable venue.

Equating a pre-print with a letter because they have both not gone through a review is like equating a skateboard with a car because they both have wheels.

Yes, both are text, written in the english language, shown on a webpage. Beyond that, they share no similarities.

If you think a pre-print is a better source than an academic letter (published in a reputable scientific journal, which implies at least editorial review), then lets agree to disagree.

A pre-print from legitimate researchers is a much higher standard of evidence than a letter. It's not really a matter of opinion.

If you cannot reliably judge the legitimacy of a pre-print in an area, then you aren't qualified to judge the legitimacy of any scientific comment in that area.

You keep calling it a "letter" but it is not just a "letter" in the sense that I can write a letter to you, it's a letter written by experts in the field to a top ranked scientific journal that has been editorially reviewed (by experts).

> If you cannot reliably judge the legitimacy of a pre-print in an area, then you aren't qualified to judge the legitimacy of any scientific comment in that area.

I agree, but now we are moving into the content and not just judging the book by its cover.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com