From the NYT article you refer to: "No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own."
I think there is a distinction to be made between mask mandates, which mean little more than the majority of the populace wearing ineffective masks improperly and often without consistent monitoring, and others, like me, choosing to wear a KN95 mask that fits snugly in crowded indoor settings in public spaces. I think it is misleading not to highlight that distinction.
Hey Carol and Merwin - thanks for your comment. I'm assuming from it that you felt my characterization of the article was misleading, and not the article itself...? I thought the article was pretty clear and scathing in its opening passages. ("'There is just no evidence that they' — masks — 'make any difference,' he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. 'Full stop.' But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks? 'Makes no difference — none of it,' said Jefferson.")
It's true that it goes on to say that the research can't say anything about individual cases, but instead that, when it comes to the aggregate, masks have been shown to be a "bust." But I assume that's always the case and the same thing could be said about any study. They always look at aggregates of people and so they can never say anything about how the results will play out in individual cases. Or do you understand that differently?
Anyways, I'm not really sure if that touches the main assertion that the author is making. He's saying that the scientific consensus asserted that masks were effective at the population level and that they've now been shown to be entirely ineffective at that level.
I should say that I don't have a very strong opinion on this particular issue. I assume the research is still up for debate and that it's all still contentious. My only point is that the scientific (and public) consensus was clear about masks a couple years ago and now there are major, public cracks in that consensus.
I think that your key phrase is "at the population level." I have certainly seen studies that measure the effectiveness of various kinds of masks on individuals, and I think that is a different scenario. If people take your article, and by extension the NYT article, to mean that there is no point in their wearing masks in certain settings and at times of heightened spread of various airborne viruses, then yes, I think that assertion could be dangerously misleading.
I don't know. There just doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in the lead author's comments: “There is just no evidence that (masks) make any difference... Makes no difference — none of it... There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference." Do you think, based on those assertions, that the lead author would still recommend wearing masks in "certain settings and at times of heightened spread"? Or that the author of the NYT article would ever recommend wearing them? If that was the case, I think they're really not getting that more balanced note across in the article...
Well, I can no longer find the original article, but my impression at the time was that the strong statements suggested a more journalistic than scientific approach. No, except for that one paragraph I cited, I don't think there was a more balanced note in the article, and that surprised me. Blanket statements make me uneasy, and I don't think I would want to be operated on by a surgeon who wasn't wearing a mask.
From the NYT article you refer to: "No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own."
I think there is a distinction to be made between mask mandates, which mean little more than the majority of the populace wearing ineffective masks improperly and often without consistent monitoring, and others, like me, choosing to wear a KN95 mask that fits snugly in crowded indoor settings in public spaces. I think it is misleading not to highlight that distinction.
Hey Carol and Merwin - thanks for your comment. I'm assuming from it that you felt my characterization of the article was misleading, and not the article itself...? I thought the article was pretty clear and scathing in its opening passages. ("'There is just no evidence that they' — masks — 'make any difference,' he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. 'Full stop.' But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks? 'Makes no difference — none of it,' said Jefferson.")
It's true that it goes on to say that the research can't say anything about individual cases, but instead that, when it comes to the aggregate, masks have been shown to be a "bust." But I assume that's always the case and the same thing could be said about any study. They always look at aggregates of people and so they can never say anything about how the results will play out in individual cases. Or do you understand that differently?
Anyways, I'm not really sure if that touches the main assertion that the author is making. He's saying that the scientific consensus asserted that masks were effective at the population level and that they've now been shown to be entirely ineffective at that level.
I should say that I don't have a very strong opinion on this particular issue. I assume the research is still up for debate and that it's all still contentious. My only point is that the scientific (and public) consensus was clear about masks a couple years ago and now there are major, public cracks in that consensus.
I think that your key phrase is "at the population level." I have certainly seen studies that measure the effectiveness of various kinds of masks on individuals, and I think that is a different scenario. If people take your article, and by extension the NYT article, to mean that there is no point in their wearing masks in certain settings and at times of heightened spread of various airborne viruses, then yes, I think that assertion could be dangerously misleading.
I don't know. There just doesn't seem to be any ambiguity in the lead author's comments: “There is just no evidence that (masks) make any difference... Makes no difference — none of it... There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference." Do you think, based on those assertions, that the lead author would still recommend wearing masks in "certain settings and at times of heightened spread"? Or that the author of the NYT article would ever recommend wearing them? If that was the case, I think they're really not getting that more balanced note across in the article...
Well, I can no longer find the original article, but my impression at the time was that the strong statements suggested a more journalistic than scientific approach. No, except for that one paragraph I cited, I don't think there was a more balanced note in the article, and that surprised me. Blanket statements make me uneasy, and I don't think I would want to be operated on by a surgeon who wasn't wearing a mask.
(I have found the article now, and the original interview, and I feel the same as before; the tone seems more political than measured and scrupulous.)