Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#31

Post by mfer »

Tyrek wrote: post #26
raziel2p wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find a source right now but I remember reading that people were more likely to wear a mask if they think it protects themselves rather than those around you, so there's some humanitarian value in pushing that narrative even if it's not technically true.

I appreciate the intention, but this is the sort of approach that leads to a long-term distrust of what 'the scientists' say - if we let politicians dictate the scientific message and consensus, then there's no room to criticize when the scientific message gets politicized and ignored.

There are studies that show a mask is effective in protecting the wearer. The one I can immediately remember is https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2020/11/16/beaumont-...

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#33

Post by J-dawg »

I guess I could say I'm "mask skeptical" even though I do wear one to conform to social pressure.

I wish the conversation would move on from "do masks work?" to "do they work well enough to be worth the cost?"

Because I think the costs are being significantly underestimated. We are social creatures. All of the joy has been taken out of routine daily activities. Putting on a mask at the supermarket entrance as if you're about to enter some contaminated danger zone. Being unable to give a friendly smile to people as you pass them. I am 100% sure it's affecting my mental health, and I can't be the only one. In online discussion, these concerns get brushed aside as if they are the complaints of a spoiled child: "stop being a Karen and put a damn mask on..."

I'm not some science denier. It seems logical that a barrier over the mouth and nose must limit how far droplets can travel. As I understand it, empirical evidence also supports this (when the mask is worn by an infected person). There may be some (weak) evidence that masks also protect a non-infected wearer, despite this study.

But the size of the effect can't be that big. Here in the UK mask compliance is high, yet we're well into our second wave. So in the real world, masks can't be doing all that much. (Or, most of the infections are happening in mask-free places such as between family members in the home).

So maybe I'm just another "Karen", but I want more evidence that I'm enduring the costs of mask-wearing for a good reason.

In the meantime, I'll keep wearing my mask because it seems to keep everyone else happy, but I'm continually disappointed by the lack of nuanced discussion about this.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#34

Post by cocoa19 »

raziel2p wrote: post #20
mark_l_watson wrote: post #6

I thought that it was accepted that the main benefit was in protecting other people. I wear a mask and a transparent face shield together. I believe that this combination offers me some protection and a lot of protection for people near me, so it seems like an obvious thing to do. BTW, I find cloth masks not so comfortable, but the plastic face shield is no real additional discomfort at all.

I can't find a source right now but I remember reading that people were more likely to wear a mask if they think it protects themselves rather than those around you, so there's some humanitarian value in pushing that narrative even if it's not technically true.

Technically wearing a mask helps "protect themselves" by second order effects.

We should never encourage lying or deceiving people (pushing not technically true narratives). This just erodes trust in society.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#35

Post by threatofrain »

splitrocket wrote: post #28

It is not "all or nothing". it's defense in depth, and if masks, which are literally dirt cheap and only a minor inconvenience are even somewhat effective, that adds to the overall mitigation efforts and should be mandated. It's not hard folks. "Turning off SMTP relay only prevents other people from getting spam. I'm not going to do that, even though it's a one line configuration change and doesn't really impact my u…

It’s also a matter of relative cost efficacy with reasonable effect sizes. Studies like this begin to empirically place magnitudes into different ballparks.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#36

Post by happytoexplain »

frumiousirc wrote: post #7
Mouse47 wrote: post #4

>In the study, which was carried out in April and May when Danish authorities did not recommend wearing face masks, 6,024 adults were divided into two groups, one wearing face masks and one control group. >After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive, Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release. >The study does not co…

> the mask group were only told to wear a mask They were asked if and how they followed instructions and the 7% that said they did not were removed from the analysis. Only half of the remaining said they followed instructions. I also doubt the veracity of the replies. This is a weak point of the procedure.

I'm confused as to why they removed that 7%. Are they or are they not trying to test the effect of advisement? If that really was the goal, then the veracity of replies wouldn't matter, and the study would make sense - but then they also wouldn't have omitted that 7%.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#38

Post by mrfusion »

happytoexplain wrote: post #22
mrfusion wrote: post #19

To those promoting masks to mitigate asymptomatic spread to others, I came across this study showing asymptotic spread is almost zero (1). Is this something we have missed are there other studies that found the opposite? (1) https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

I'm also curious about this. Unrelated: Note that the phrase "inconvenient fact" is usually used as a bad-faith attack in ideological arguments, rather than just being used literally, and you may catch flak from people misinterpreting you.

You’re absolutely right. I’ve edited my comment.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#39

Post by Symmetry »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #6

I thought that it was accepted that the main benefit was in protecting other people. I wear a mask and a transparent face shield together. I believe that this combination offers me some protection and a lot of protection for people near me, so it seems like an obvious thing to do. BTW, I find cloth masks not so comfortable, but the plastic face shield is no real additional discomfort at all.

Yes, wearing a mask doesn't protect you against infection from droplets in your eye. And aerosols tend to shrink a bit through evaporation between when they might be exhaled and someone else inhales them. So there's some asymmetry between masks protecting yourself and protecting other, but it isn't clear how much.

Re: Danish study finds face masks provide limited protection to wearer

#40

Post by comicjk »

Knufen wrote: post #2

Dane here, so I've read the study. One of the important aspects here is of course the sample size, the timing of the study (during a downward trend in Denmark) and more importantly, it doesn't tell us if it protects others (which other research points to).

This is the key fact. Only 2% of the subjects tested antibody-positive at the end of the study (low enough that it's near the false-positive rate of the home antibody tests). The mask group had fewer cases (by PCR, they had zero). But the numbers are too small to say. If you ran the study in the US in the same time period, you would have had a better shot.
Post reply on HN