2009
Public trust
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Are we still pretending <100% effectiveness = worthless? (Just kidding, I know folks are.)
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449
The issue here is that people pretended masks were very affective, and I have not seen any actual data that they were very useful. I have seen a lot of memes like the one above that pretend they were essential when the only data I ever recall seeing was they were overall 4% useful, by a pro-mask source. And if you look around there are lots of sources that said they did nothing, I dont know which is true, but lack of solid evidence seems to point to it was pointless.
Do you think masks should have been mandated indoors if they had a 4% impact? How about 0.1%?
Twentyish studies are sourced at the bottom of the article I linked, and it details the effectiveness of each mask type in the body of the article. Why we are discussing mandates now I don't know, feels like a bit of the ol' goalposts on wheels to me, it's not what I replied to.
I think this is the most important part of the article "Yes. When used with measures such as getting vaccinated, hand-washing and physical distancing, wearing a face mask slows how quickly the virus that causes COVID-19 spreads." It essentially says do all the things and it will be impactful.
At what level of impact do you think masks should have been forced on people?
I'm not going to re-litigate mask mandates with you. I'm sure you'll find someone happy to have that argument. You can keep moving those goalposts, but I'm not following.
That was really the big question back in the day, and when I see spotty evidence at best for mandating something that really is the key question.