To think this meme is pretty unpleasant?

[heyfrog]

I have a "friend" on Facebook who as well as believing in all the other conspiracy theories also believes COVID is a mass plot to control us etc. (This isn't really around COVID hence not putting it on that board). She's uploaded the attached pic tonight which I think is pretty offensive - I appreciate other people have different views to me, but this seems to imply that because I'd wear a mask this is comparable to Nazi supporters. AIBU to think she's gone a bit far with this one?

Might be interesting for some people on this thread to read the research that came out in Denmark today on masks. It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer. There still appears to be a protective effect in terms of likelihood of transmission to someone else.

It’s interesting how quickly people appeal to certainty and “consensus” - using such things to call other people stupid or malicious - when, actually (IMO) it’s their own inability to deal with uncertainty that is the issue.

Block her for life. I would have. Ffs

@flaviaritt

Might be interesting for some people on this thread to read the research that came out in Denmark today on masks. It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer. There still appears to be a protective effect in terms of likelihood of transmission to someone else.

It’s interesting how quickly people appeal to certainty and “consensus” - using such things to call other people stupid or malicious - when, actually (IMO) it’s their own inability to deal with uncertainty that is the issue.

Masks - non medical face coverings - have been promoted as a means of stopping transmission, rather than as being protective to the wearer, for as long as their usage has been promoted in this pandemic.

So this isn't "contrary to the WHO"

This reviews the study you're talking about - www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/11/18/lead-researcher-behind-controversial-danish-study-says-you-should-still-wear-a-mask/amp/ - and it's clear that the lead researcher doesn't want you drawing the conclusion you just drew.

Next?

DameFanny

Again, you genuinely seem to be having trouble with the idea that people can be open to more than one possibility, or hold opinions that are not exactly the same as yours, without necessarily (as you do) drawing conclusions that they are prepared to defend to the point of calling others stupid. I don’t know enough about mask wearing to be definite in my views. I accept that others have different views. The reality is there is still a lot of research to do before anyone can be absolutely sure what they do.

And it definitely supports my view that there is nowhere near as strong a consensus on mask-wearing in the scientific community as has been implied here. People who don’t believe masks are effective (or not justifiably so) aren’t flat-earthers. They just have a different opinion.

That's your take from this?

I give up

What is my ‘take’?

@flaviaritt

Might be interesting for some people on this thread to read the research that came out in Denmark today on masks. It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer. There still appears to be a protective effect in terms of likelihood of transmission to someone else.

It’s interesting how quickly people appeal to certainty and “consensus” - using such things to call other people stupid or malicious - when, actually (IMO) it’s their own inability to deal with uncertainty that is the issue.

It's interesting that you use the word "certainty" in relation to this paper, because that's exactly what it lacks.

From the paper:

“The most important limitation is the that the findings are inconclusive.”

“Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting.”

Limitations were:

“Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”

It does not suggest that "there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer". All it shows that, given the specific design of this study, no significant difference was found between mask-wearing and control in terms of protection from infection.

Because of the small sample size, the confidence interval of the results was huge and, based on this data, the effect of mask wearing could range from a 46% decrease in infection to a 23% increase in infection. That is very inconclusive.

All we can conclude is that, in places where infection rates are generally low, and other protective measures are in place, this specific mask recommendation made during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with background rates of 2% PCR acquisition, failed to show that mask wearing reduces risk by 50%. It may have reduced risk by 46%. It may have increased risk by 23%. Or somewhere in between. We don’t know, because of the way the study was designed and the results they got.

The study also did not test for the effect of mask-wearing in infection rates of other people, which is one of the big claims of mask-wearing.

So, while interesting, this paper doesn't add a great deal to the body of evidence around mask-wearing, and has been widely misinterpreted as evidence that 'masks don't work'.

Extremely thick as well as offensive.
Or more sinisterly, malicious. It was afterall the Nazis who were so enthusiastic about the eugenics that so many Covid Deniers have embraced. All the Othering of the elderly and the disabled. Straight out of a Nazi guidebook.

Wow. Someone took the time to photoshop all those masks on, and managed not to have a moment of clarity doing so.

Ironically the only people I have seen lately doing Nazi salutes have been on the news at the anti lockdown protests.

ItsGoingTibiaK

I realise the results are uncertain. I didn’t say otherwise. And I don’t think ‘masks don’t work’. What I am saying is that there is a body of opinion that legitimately questions whether they work. There isn’t the firm consensus that has been suggested on this thread, such that people who do question it should be referred to as fuckwits and morons. The evidence base is still uncertain.

I prefer this one.

It's seems a popular theme with people that see themselves as some sort of freedom fighters for not wearing a mask or sticking to guidelines...the other day on a thread, someone said I was the same as people that reported Jews to the Nazis AND people that refused to share a water fountain with black people in the Times of segregation on America....all because I (calmly and politely) said I stuck to self isolation rules (ergo I am a mindless rule follower I guess)

I feel the world has flipped itself on its head at the moment, with regards to trying to do the right thing.

I feel the world has flipped itself on its head at the moment, with regards to trying to do the right thing.

I think most people are trying to do the right thing. We have to live with the fact that this virus is very new, and we don’t know exactly what the right thing is.

Yep. Your friend has overstepped the mark.

@flaviaritt

ItsGoingTibiaK

I realise the results are uncertain. I didn’t say otherwise. And I don’t think ‘masks don’t work’. What I am saying is that there is a body of opinion that legitimately questions whether they work. There isn’t the firm consensus that has been suggested on this thread, such that people who do question it should be referred to as fuckwits and morons. The evidence base is still uncertain.

Then you shouldn't have said, "It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer." Because it doesn't.

Then you shouldn't have said, "It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer." Because it doesn't.

It does. Might not be right, but the study does suggest this.

@flaviaritt

Then you shouldn't have said, "It suggests that (contrary to what the WHO have been saying) there isn’t actually a significant protective effect for the wearer." Because it doesn't.

It does. Might not be right, but the study does suggest this.

It categorically does not. An inconclusive study cannot suggest this. All it can suggest is that the effect of mask-wearing within the confines of this study (a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon) was somewhere between a 46% risk reduction and a 23% increase in risk.

Given that reducing risk, increasing risk and the risk being the same are mutually exclusive outcomes, the study cannot suggest that all of them occurred, and neither can it determine which outcome was more likely.

That's why it's inconclusive.

It's a load of wank and tells you the person sharing it is pig ignorant.

I could not let this go.

I would have to comment asking whether she really really believes that wearing a mask is akin to being a nazi? Depending on her answer would depend on whether I deleted her from my life or not.

Yep offensive.

She must be a class A idiot. I'd report it.

ItsGoingTibiaK

I understand what you are saying. It is inconclusive because it doesn’t show a significant degree of protection, but neither does it demonstrate that there is no significant degree of protection.

But my point remains: the science behind mask-wearing does not have a strong consensus across the board. It is entirely possible that what the WHO have been suggesting (which they were, several months ago), that masks do protect the wearer, isn’t the case. The research still needs to be done and conclusions drawn before we will know that.

So, to the broader point, it is frustrating when people are so vociferous and actually highly contemptuous of others in their defence of conclusions that have been reversed and defined and caveated even over the last year, and which are by no means representative of the whole body of opinion on the topic.

Ask her for some facts rather than the cheap manipulation of a highly emotive and historic image. How utterly vile she must be to find it funny or how disturbed her ego to believe she is some free thinking hero making a stand.

@flaviaritt

ItsGoingTibiaK

I understand what you are saying. It is inconclusive because it doesn’t show a significant degree of protection, but neither does it demonstrate that there is no significant degree of protection.

But my point remains: the science behind mask-wearing does not have a strong consensus across the board. It is entirely possible that what the WHO have been suggesting (which they were, several months ago), that masks do protect the wearer, isn’t the case. The research still needs to be done and conclusions drawn before we will know that.

So, to the broader point, it is frustrating when people are so vociferous and actually highly contemptuous of others in their defence of conclusions that have been reversed and defined and caveated even over the last year, and which are by no means representative of the whole body of opinion on the topic.

True. I've just been a bit frustrated seeing how this study has been misused over the last few days. Not particularly by you, but especially people who predetermined its outcome because of the controversy around its delayed publication ("they can't get it published so it must prove masks don't work") and now can't see beyond that bias.

I agree about inability to see nuance - and there is no need to personally insulting to people about their views. The problem is, the mask issue seems like common sense to everyone, no matter which side of the divide they sit. "Of course it's going to reduce viral load!", "It's like stopping mosquitos with a chain-link fence!", "Why do surgeons wear them then?!", etc.

But, until we have much clearer evidence either, this is all just speculation.

What I haven't seen, though, is any evidence that masks are actively harmful (and I mean actual evidence - not people using gas toxicity meters and oxygen sensors in ways for which they weren't designed in order to make click-bait YouTube videos).

I've seen papers that show oxygen saturation level is unaffected by mask-wearing. I've seen no evidence that mask-wearing increases risk of bacterial pneumonia, as is often claimed, and I've seen no evidence that mask-wearing increases the risk of viral infection.

Without that evidence of harm - and with the limited evidence of benefit - it seems sensible that people should be encouraged to wear masks during an acute crisis. Waiting for proper random controlled trials to be done just wasn't feasible with the speed at which the pandemic took hold - and it's now become ethically difficult to run a proper controlled trial given that most countries already mandate mask-wearing to some degree. The window of opportunity the Danish researchers used has passed.