Hacker News Reader

Comment by dailykoder | Hacker News Reader

I did that and clicked through the first 5 links. Doesn't sound that obvious to me. I found this one interesting: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10446908/

> More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types.

So as a dummy I conclude that masks do work, as expected. But the question is still: Do we need them?

View on HN

> ... Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis ...

I doubt that study will be conclusive, there are so many possible confounding factors that are hard to account for. Particularly the tactical problem where wearing a mask obviously can stop someone getting COVID in any given encounter, but it is much harder to check if it stops them getting COVID during the pandemic.

If we have a control that moves the world from someone gets COVID during the pandemic to ... someone still gets COVID during the pandemic but a month later then it is unclear what mandates are doing. It'd take more than a study abstract to determine that, it'd take a lot of reading through the specifics to see what is going on.

Changing an exponential process that doubles every week to every 2 weeks is basically doing nothing. Half the population will still be infected in the last step. If spreading the infections over 2 weeks instead of one is important then that might be a win, but everyone seemed to abandon flattening the curve pretty quickly as a strategy.

Honestly I think the best advice is to assume masks don't do anything. The point isn't to suggest people run around having parties during a pandemic. The point is to suggest people use distancing as their primary mode of protection. Being outdoors is an excellent defense, as is shown in the data generated by the NFL during the pandemic.

>Being outdoors is an excellent defense, as is shown in the data generated by the NFL during the pandemic.

This is so crazy to me. Maybe it wasn't communicated clear enough, but for me it was always cristal clear that while being outside chances of getting infected are very very small. And people were still afraid and wore masks outside. The government still bullied you, and police could fine you, if you took a stroll during lockdown in germany.

No, I didn't want to go outside or to a party to infect others. I wanted to take a stroll to not kill myself and because I knew there is almost no chance in getting infected or infecting anyone else. And I still was scared of any police car driving past, because the government fucked up. I even remember the news stories of people getting fined because they read a book on a f-in park bench, because they werent allowed to linger outside

The weirdest part to me is that we were well aware being outside was relatively safe early in the pandemic.

There is another world where the pandemic became about telling people to focus on good ventilation and being outside as much as possible. Imagine classes and meetings conducted outside, and everyone just hanging out at the beach and parks.

It almost sounds like we could have ended the pandemic feeling like it improved our mental health.

Do we need them now? Probably not. But if we get another pandemic? Definitely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com