site banner
nopie  1yr ago (vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com)   Edited 1yr ago   3300 thread views

Cochrane review is out and masks have weak evidence that they are not effective

vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com

This one is against rationalists because when Scott wrote his review that masks could be effective many of us trusted it.

I don't blame Scott for failing this one because doing review of hundreds of studies is hard and one person can hardly do it. But this clearly shows that rationalist way of thinking has no special formula, they can be easily mistaken and fall by accepting general consensus just like any other person.

I was impressed when Scott did his review about masks. I trusted it because there was no other clear evidence available. Cochrane hadn't done its review yet and NICE guidelines were silent on the issue. We vaguely knew from previous studies that masks are not effective, The WHO had said so. Suddenly everyone flipped and it was not because the evidence had changed. We simply wanted to believe that masks work and we mocked those who said “no evidence that masks help”.

Even with the belief that masks work, I never wanted mask mandates. I preferred recommendations only, so that no one was penalized or prohibited entry, travel etc if one doesn't want to wear mask. Scott unwillingly had been a catalyst for governments to introduce mask mandates and all this heavy handed approach has been for nothing.

Now we are back to square one, the evidence about masks is weak and it does not support their use even in hospital settings. We can all reflect now what happened in between during these 2 or 3 years. When I realized that Scott's review is clearly insufficient as evidence, I asked some doctors if they have any better evidence that masks work. Instead of getting answer I was told not to be silly, parachutes don't need RCTs and accused me of being covid denier for nor reason. Many so-called experts were making the same mistake as Scott by looking at the issue too emotionally. It is time to get back to reality and admit that it was a mistake and we should have judged the issue with more rational mind.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The point is that we're dealing with a Motte and Bailey argument here,

Yes. The bailey is "of course masks work, you're banned for spreading misinformation", and the motte is "of course properly fitted masks, of a type that no one wore, work".

It's especially bizarre to see given that the same people are claiming to be (legitimately, IMO) upset at Fauci and Co. for misrepresenting/misinterpreting/misusing science and statistics to argue for mask mandates.

How is it bizarre? I maintain that it's obvious when people say "masks don't work" they meant the masks they were actually forced to wear. What are they misrepresenting? How is it not the pro-maskers who are not misusing the science instead?

Standard pattern of Motte-versus-Motte warfare: my motte is to deny you your bailey, and my bailey is to also deny you your motte (and, automatically, your position is symmetrical).

Sound medieval warfare tactics.

"you're banned for spreading misinformation" is downplaying things. In the real world, where mask mandates were sometimes enforced, the bailey sometimes became "of course masks work, and the police will beat the shit out of you if you disagree."

I've stalked people since the reddit site and remember the arguments they used to make. There were plenty of people making those arguments "here" in 2021, and there needs to be some process to address old arguments without allowing a temporal motte and bailey.

I don't recall anyone on /r/themotte saying 'you should be banned for misinformation if you say masks don't work'. My old comments were of the form 'should have had RCTs to figure out how to make masks that work early'.

Why should we limit ourselves to the conversation that is happening here?

but lots of people are absolutely making the M&B argument I'm citing.

Again, they can defend themselves, but I think you're misinterpreting people.

Is this supposed to be a serious question?

Yes.

Because yelling about what some people who aren't here did isn't productive or interesting

Neither is discussing the effectiveness of a policy that was never implemented, and which would arguably be unenforceable, but this is exactly what you seem to want to do for some reason.

and often veers into "Boo outgroup!" which the rules of this place explicitly prohibit.

Pointing out a policy did not work, isn't "boo outgroup".

Cool. My interest is as a dude who was forced to wear an ineffective surgical / FFP2 mask for 2 years, and who would get censored for expressing the sentiment that they are ineffective. Like I said, I maintain it is obvious that the statement "masks don't work" refers to the masks that were mandated by the aforementioned policy. I'm not making anything up. This stuff happened.

surgical / FFP2 mask

Those are very different things. Wikipedia defines an FFP2 mask as the European equivalent of an N95, i.e. what it normally used for repository pathogens like SARS-CoV-2. I'm used to surgical mask being used to refer to the masks you see on surgeons in medical shows which are intended to block exhalations/spit/sneezes and do not have a seal so they have limited to no expectation of preventing breathing in airborne pathogens.

Oh lol, in that case I take back every cautiously positive thing I said about N95s. If these things worked we'd have undeniable population level data ftom Europe showing it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats