This is the News!

[The Legendary Shark]

Masks are ineffective against viruses. They are worn in China etc. to protect from pollution, not disease.

[Hawkmumbler]

Ah yes, SARS masks are famously worn in clinical environment as a consequence of...air pollution. Stunning observation.

Masks do, as it turns out, reduce the spread of viruses (ignoring the fact viruses and disease(s) are not synonymous and shouldn't be used interchangeably).

This shit was cute in 2020, years on its just tiresome.

Also reducing a trans-continental social activity down to a monolithic rationale rather than a series of nested, and frequently regionally distinct, factors is dumb. it's really dumb to assume billions of people do something for one reason exclusively. Thats a silly argument Shark.

[Funt Solo]

I am come from the future to warn you, as is my duty, of the Great Reset of 5G's worth of faked Twin Tower moon landings. You can help - simply go to the hidden basement of the JFK pizzeria, enter The Hatch and turn off the chem trail faucet. It's all so clear to me now! (Of course, don't wear the masks, which are nano-weaved with Gates-Probes, constructed from a Sirian design which would sheeple you before you could say boo to a moose. The goose keyword is tracked, and should not be used unless you've sprinkled holy water on your keyboard.)

[JayzusB.Christ]

There were a few Japanese kids in my primary school in the 1980s; pretty much the only foreign kids in the school. The guy in my class came in wearing a mask when he had a cold - the teacher told him to take it off, assuring him that plenty of other kids in the class also had colds.

Anyway I have no intention of having a debate on it, sorry.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'll just add that I apologise for potentially reigniting this old internet debate, when I always found it incredibly draining. I regret bringing it up and I'm sorry for doing so.

[Funt Solo]

I was just fannying around, JBC. So sorry. I'll back right off.

[Hawkmumbler]

Honestly IDK why I took the bait again, must be the heat.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Look, the only reason they told us to wear masks is because they knew all the good little, compliant meek people would wear masks. Troublemakers obviously wouldn't.

This meant the CCTV fed facial recognition servers wouldn't be jammed up with useless noise of sheeple mugs and could focus more on the kissers of the seditious and rebellious semblances.

[Barrington Boots]

Where I work, a homeless guy I used to see most mornings told me Covid had been made up by the government to 'sell masks to idiots'.

He's dead now. Of Covid.

[IndigoPrime]

As someone mentioned on Twitter, these are the types of people who wouldn't wear a square of material on their faces a couple of years ago when it meant protecting other people around them from illness*.

Because, as ever, it's about them and selfishness. Same reason certain Americans are vehemently against 'socialised' medicine. They basically want what they see as personal autonomy and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Although this is straight-up cult behaviour now.

*which is something Chinese and Japanese people have done for decades to protect other people from colds and flus, and something I can't help feeling we should do more often these days too.

Indeed. I'd hoped at least two positives would come out of covid: the normalisation of mask use when ill in the west, and an increase in flexible working conditions. Corporations have been fighting like hell against the latter, and the former is basically dead. I'm still wearing a mask on public transport, and I get proper looks now. But the last time I was on a train, someone fairly nearby was coughing and hacking as if they were about to expire. So I'm fine if people think I'm the weirdo. I'd prefer it if they thought people like that were, however.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I was just fannying around, JBC. So sorry. I'll back right off.

Not at all, I knew you were messing about - I wasn't referring to any specific post by anyone. It was just that as soon as I posted I realised I might have started another long and (for me at least) exhausting argument about masks.

[The Legendary Shark]

Ah yes, SARS masks are famously worn in clinical environment as a consequence of...air pollution. Stunning
observation.


Nice use of a straw man argument, there. Inserting the words "clinical environment" gives you an easy argument to defeat - an argument brought entirely by you. Indeed, I can 100% agree with you that masks are generally not worn in clinical environments as a consequence of air pollution. They are generally worn to prevent spatter from patient to doctor or bacterial transfer from doctor to patient.


Masks do, as it turns out, reduce the spread of viruses (ignoring the fact viruses and disease(s) are not synonymous and shouldn't be used interchangeably).


This study isn't the slam-dunk you seem to think it is. It says things like, "Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions." That's in the Abstract, first, part of the paper. Other gems include, "However, the majority of studies suffered from a critical ROB in at least one domain, and effects were uncertain in magnitude and variable between studies," "it is not clear whether masks are effective, for example against highly transmissible Omicron variants," and "Additionally, masks in these settings were usually introduced in conjunction with other NPIs including personal protective equipment, visitor restrictions, strict quarantine and isolation rules, and in some cases, increased ventilation requirements in COVID-19 wards. Likewise, masks were rarely the only NPIs implemented in community settings, particularly early in the pandemic when people were encouraged to limit mobility, self-isolate when ill or in contact with cases and seek frequent testing. Regarding bias, there is a risk of overstating the effectiveness of masks if, for example, mask wearers were more cautious about meeting others in their communities. On the other hand, the potential effectiveness of masks could be understated if the risk of infection has been reduced by other concurrent NPIs, as suspected by Bundgaard et al."

The Conclusion of this paper states: "Most of the studies included in this rapid systematic review were observational rather than experimental. Study designs commonly suffered from a critical ROB. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision. Nevertheless, taking together the evidence from all studies, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection." Note how the study conflates masks and respirators and then folds in mask mandates as well to reach its (Covid only) conclusion. All this study does is point out the need for further and better designed studies, which I think are needed to clarify the situation.


This shit was cute in 2020, years on its just tiresome.

Yep.



Also reducing a trans-continental social activity down to a monolithic rationale rather than a series of nested, and frequently regionally distinct, factors is dumb. it's really dumb to assume billions of people do something for one reason exclusively. Thats a silly argument Shark.

That's because it's another straw man. You inserted the "one reason exclusively" claim. Okay, so my generalisation was a response to an earlier generalisation (which I notice you didn't pick up on), and so you could level that accusation of silliness. Let me then, re-state: Having spoken to a few people from that part of the world (volunteers and campers) over the last decade or so, and people who have lived and/or worked there, and having asked about masking from those people, it appears to me that most mask use in these areas is to safeguard against smog and industrial pollution rather than stopping viruses.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Okay, so my generalisation was a response to an earlier generalisation (which I notice you didn't pick up on)

Mine, then. Alright, I've worked in Beijing and taught many students from Japan, Korea and China - masks are sometimes used against pollution and sometimes used against transmission of illness. As to how effective they are for either - I don't know, it's not my area, so I'm out for now.  As I said, I wish I hadn't brought it up. 

[The Legendary Shark]

That wasn't an accusation, JBC. I know you don't like talking about this stuff so I was trying to keep your name out of it. My point is simply that normal cloth and/or surgical masks seem to be effective against particulate pollution and many bacteria, but few (if any) viruses.

This is my opinion, based on the information I've encountered, and not incontrovertible fact. Like you, I don't know for sure and am open to being convinced, but at the moment I'm strongly of the belief that masks have little to no effect on the spread of viruses.

I bow to your experience of the area and people in question as I have never visited and have only spoken to a handful of people about this.

Anyway, I'll shut up now before somebody gets the padlocks out.

[Hawkmumbler]

Can't say 'I heard it down the pub from some (single digits) foreigners' at all a compelling foundation for debate.

And as we're already at the point of eschewing good faith arguments for 'guess the fallacy' I think JBC has the right idea.