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

Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#101

Post by goto11 »

brigandish wrote: post #60
tomgp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! We're talking about wearing a face mask for a short amount of time in very specific situations here, a tiny inconvenience which has proven benefits for a broad swathe of the population (not just the old). No one's asking you to lock yourself at home and not see friends and family. Wearing a mask on a plane is going to reduce the chances of those more stringent measures being put back on the table. Also, not ever…

> proven benefits Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? > Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people. Uncalled for. You might consider that to impose your views on others could easily be considered far more selfish than someone unwilling to participate in an activity, even one with such unimpeachable, proven benefits .

> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly?

Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.

If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to random chance.

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#102

Post by brigandish »

goto11 wrote: post #101
brigandish wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> proven benefits Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? > Also, not everyone is selfish, you're projecting the way you see the world onto other people. Uncalled for. You might consider that to impose your views on others could easily be considered far more selfish than someone unwilling to participate in an activity, even one with such unimpeachable, proven benefits .

> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently. If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to rando…

> Because it had too few participants

From the study[1]:

> A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study.

That's more than enough people.

> or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low

The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the population[2] to warrant the study showing some importance.

> The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently.

From the study:

> Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%)

> Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

Don't you think it's strange that proven benefits are so hard to substantiate in a randomised controlled trial? These proven benefits can't be proven or shown to be beneficial across thousands of people, during a pandemic?

That's not going to fly with me, especially since every other RCT done on masks prior to the pandemic failed to show efficacy against influenza, even in clinical environments.

Maybe we could rerun the study now, while the highly infectious Omicron variant is running rampant, which apparently masks and vaccines are rubbish at preventing.

It's almost as if the proven benefits aren't proven and hence, not benefits.

Forgive the sarcasm but if people want to make bold claims then I suggest I may be able to poke holes in their case by mocking it, as I would with people knocking on my door claiming the apocalypse is nigh, or those telling me to change my behaviour because of whatever other pie in the sky belief they hold. When they come back with the RCT that shows the efficacy of masks - something, I might add, that should be possible in a pandemic - then there'll be something to discuss. Otherwise, the criticisms of the study, which weren't given before it was published I might add, are all quibbles.

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

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#103

Post by goto11 »

brigandish wrote: post #102
goto11 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did the DANMASK RCT fail so spectacularly? Because it had too few participants, or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low. The number of infected in both groups were too small to conclude anything confidently. If I remember correctly the group without masks were infected about 20% more than the group with masks, but since the absolute numbers were too low is could have been due to rando…

> Because it had too few participants From the study[1]: > A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. That's more than enough people. > or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the populatio…

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing. Are you saying the result was statistically significant?

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#104

Post by djohnston »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #9

I wonder what happens to all the conspiracy theorists who a couple of years ago said "this [the enforcement of mask wearing] is just the beginning", and that this is "exactly what Orwell predicted"? Do they admit they were wrong? Or do they conveniently forget they ever said anything like that and move onto the next conspiracy (which currently is likely to resemble toeing the Kremlin line)?

If you don't have a vaccine passport you need to go pay a private company for a test to ensure you don't have a virus the vaccine doesn't even prevent you from contracting. How is that not a dangerous and persistent normalisation of government overreach?

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#105

Post by brigandish »

goto11 wrote: post #103
brigandish wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it had too few participants From the study[1]: > A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. That's more than enough people. > or happened when the overall infection rate in society was too low The study was conducted in April and May of 2020, there were clearly enough infectious people in the populatio…

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing. Are you saying the result was statistically significant?

Statistical significance relies on more than just the number of participants, but if you want me to make my argument more simple for you, I can:

When making bold claims, the claimant should provide evidence for those claims. Supply me with the RCT that proves the benefit of wearing masks.

Do you have it?

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#106

Post by tarboreus »

aeternum wrote: post #84
andybak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a very expensive holiday mostly ruined because someone arrived at a 1 to 1 meeting with me the week before and announced 5 minutes in: "sorry - i've got a cold at the moment". I now always phone ahead if I've got sniffles and ask permission. There should be better ettiquette around things like this.

I'd rather see the ettiquette around coughing in public confined spaces. In some cultures it is frowned upon and happens very rarely. In western culture it seems like the agreement is that coughs are completely uncontrollable and are acceptable anywhere. Maybe those that can't control their coughs should wear masks but those healthy enough to suppress coughs do not have to.

Some people cough uncontrollably for chronic health reasons. Would those people just be persona non grata everywhere?

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#107

Post by Overtonwindow »

dTal wrote: post #56
Overtonwindow wrote: post #54

I am neither a medical professional, nor a scientist, but I absolutely fail to see how wearing a mask on a three hour flight, sitting side by side, is going to protect anyone. Please, is there real science to back up wearing a mask but still being 18 inches away from each other, for hours on end, or is this just the flight attendants union? I beg your pardon, but I Really hate masks on planes and I think it’s total B…

In a small unventilated closed room you'd be right - the aerosol from mask leakage would saturate the room and the masks would be useless. The kind of masks that most people wear are mainly useful for preventing direct droplet transmission when two people's faces are in close proximity - especially when there's talking involved. However an airliner is extremely well ventilated - the entire cabin air is refreshed ever…

That is very helpful, thank you. So it's airflow that is the advantage. I guess my next question, at what point, if ever, will it be ok to fly without masks?

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#108

Post by bigDinosaur »

ImaCake wrote: post #93
bigDinosaur wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, humanity has normalised many problematic things before. We've set many poor precedents. I don't disagree! The issue here is that vaccine passports currently have no medical justification but are persisting purely as a punishment (I'd say incentive, but anyone here who hasn't yet been vaccinated will never be swayed by vaccine passports at this point). I of course do expect these to go even in my fairly strict ju…

My close family circle is against the vaccine mandates now, as am I. Although we all supported them initially. So it is hard for me to gauge the general opinion on the mandates. I suspect support is waning fast with high vax rates and the reduced threat of COVID. I don’t think mask mandates punish in the same way as a vaccine mandate. You can change your mind and wear a mask instantly. A vaccine takes time and has gr…

I think we're mostly in agreement. I mean, I did go and get vaccinated so the coercive measures did work on me, and I also wore a mask when I had to. But I really chafe at the notion that we haven't set a profound precedent in terms of governmental control over daily life, and a lot of people seem completely fine with all these mandates and vaccine passports. I find it kind of shocking, even though I'm pretty heavily pro-vaccine.

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#109

Post by aeternum »

tarboreus wrote: post #106
aeternum wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see the ettiquette around coughing in public confined spaces. In some cultures it is frowned upon and happens very rarely. In western culture it seems like the agreement is that coughs are completely uncontrollable and are acceptable anywhere. Maybe those that can't control their coughs should wear masks but those healthy enough to suppress coughs do not have to.

Some people cough uncontrollably for chronic health reasons. Would those people just be persona non grata everywhere?

People that have constant diarrhea for example can't go in pools. Yet pools you can chlorinate to actually kill the bacteria.

You are much more likely to get sick from someone coughing in a small confined space with you vs. if someone has diarrhea in the water next to you.

An alien looking upon this world would probably think it strange and illogical that we are generally okay with the coughing scenario but not with the pool scenario.

Re: Masks on planes requirement dropped by some UK airlines

#110

Post by skinnymuch »

brigandish wrote: post #96
skinnymuch wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.

Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved. Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy giv…

This stuff. At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs.

The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out.

If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes.

I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security.

I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against.

Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot

Post reply on HN