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

41–50 of 74 posts

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

#41

Post by J-dawg »

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.

That is an absolutely horrible idea, and is exactly what fuels widespread mistrust of public health initiatives.

Tell the damn truth. If something is uncertain, tell the damn truth about how uncertain it is.

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

#42

Post by mvcalder »

frumiousirc wrote: post #5

Here's the actual study. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 The intervention being tested was merely how a RECOMMENDATION to wear a mask (and other advice and a pack of 50 surgical masks) may affect infection rates. Of the mask wearers, and based on asking them and accepting their answers as truthful, 46% wore the mask as recommended, 47% "predominantly" as recommended, 7% not as recommended. The 7% wer…

I did not read the article so maybe this was answered. But if the study was to see the effect of the recommendation + small supply of masks, I don't see why the non-compliant 7% would be censored. In one ear and out the other is one possible recommendation outcome.

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

#43

Post by Symmetry »

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…

It isn't clear that the people in the control group didn't wear masks. Few Danish people were wearing masks then but I'd imagine that people who went and volunteered for this study would be more likely to be the sort of people who would go and get their own masks if they weren't given them.

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

#44

Post by ahamdy88 »

I think you should read the study yourself instead of taking some journalist conclusions who really loves flashy titles

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

From the study: 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.

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

#45

Post by sleepysysadmin »

I guess every mask has 'limited protection'. N95 is 95%. The limit being 95%.

The masks most people are wearing are 'surgical masks' but those still tend to be in the 75% range. Which if both sides are wearing 75% masks, then the effectiveness is still relatively high. An effectiveness above 90%.

The article says:

“The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%, however, the study could not rule out that face masks do not provide any protection.”

That's just not in line with what we do know. Mask technology isn't new. This seems overly broad as well, how did they account for say hand washing? Everyone had the same hand washing regime? I doubt they controlled for that.

Here's the thing, if you don't trust in the level of masks. You are completely free to do better. This isn't an argument to go backwards in protection.

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

#46

Post by happytoexplain »

J-dawg wrote: post #33

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'…

Ignoring the people who are obviously just complaining about masks for ideological/"Karen" reasons, I have to say I've been totally caught off guard during this pandemic by the existence of people like you (not in a critical way). I can relate to it feeling a little awkward at first wearing a mask in public in a culture that doesn't usually do that, but, despite being a social person and sympathizing with the social isolation pain of staying at home, the idea that "all of the joy has been taken out of routine daily activities" due to the masks for psycho-social reasons was outside my realm of imagination. I genuinely feel bad for people with that piece of personality.

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

#47

Post by belorn »

frumiousirc wrote: post #5

Here's the actual study. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 The intervention being tested was merely how a RECOMMENDATION to wear a mask (and other advice and a pack of 50 surgical masks) may affect infection rates. Of the mask wearers, and based on asking them and accepting their answers as truthful, 46% wore the mask as recommended, 47% "predominantly" as recommended, 7% not as recommended. The 7% wer…

The recommendation here in Sweden, who has a similar infection rate to Denmark, is to use mask in places where the infection rate is high and no general recommendation for places with low infection rate.

The reason for that is basically identical to what you wrote. Studies done in low infection areas give relatively fewer chances for the efficacy of masks to be tested, resulting in inconclusive data. Data from high infection rate areas is more conclusive and thus the recommendation is to use mask there where the data shows a conclusive result.

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

#48

Post by Gwypaas »

mfer wrote: post #31
Tyrek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Do you also handle your mask and other PPE like this? [0] From the comments the even the linked video is not perfect. This is the problem with the public advice, humans are imperfect and will always be, maybe our kids will be better due to growing up with them. Hopefully the masks have some positive effect at least.

There's never been a question about medical settings.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUo5O1JmLH0

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

#49

Post by mrfusion »

comicjk wrote: post #25
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

Only 6% of the subjects in that study were asymptomatic by their definition. I think this is a confusion of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic: most cases will have a few days of pre-symptomatic infection regardless of the symptoms they have later.

I think it might be a good point but I’m not quite understanding.

Why does 6% matter if the statistical significance works out? Also I can’t seem to see how you’re saying the study has asymptomatic and presymptomatic confused.

(I don’t have a great background in all this so I could def be missing this.)

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

#50

Post by raziel2p »

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.

In comparison with conspiracy theories, populism, outrage culture, and people getting their news from facebook, I'm pretty sure this is a drop in the ocean when it comes to distrust of scientists.

Also, let's assume the facts are that masks are 5-10% effective in protecting the wearer. The phrases "masks can protect you" or "masks have little effect in protecting you" are both true from a scientific point of view, agree? I don't think it's a good idea to push fake statistics or cherry-pick studies, but I do prefer the former phrasing from a political and humanitarian point of view.

EDIT: former, not latter :)

Post reply on HN