• MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I didn’t know lemmy was full of anti maskers. Wear a mask ffs. You should have kn95s or n95s. They work and prevent all sorts of illness. Even a regular mask works better than nothing. They did plenty of studies.

    • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t wear one in my day-to-day, but I’m certainly not going to begrudge somebody for wearing one, and you can be sure I’m gonna have em around for flu season, COVID or no.
      The problem is masks got politicized by assholes that want to be contrarian for the sake of preserving their paradigm, their worldview.
      These are people so mentally weak and reliant on the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to that when something like a plague comes around, it shifts their paradigm so fuckin’ hard that they have to tell themselves the science is wrong and everybody is going to be fine. I suppose the other part of it is treating your national politics like a fuckin’ football game, but that doesn’t even warrant discussing because it’s so goddamn obvious and pervasive.
      Now imagine, as a hypothetical scenario, the government tells us aliens are real one day, and they’re here. Watch these people really lose it. Wouldn’t know whether to shit or go blind.
      Edit: As for the people that are just genuinely tired of hearing about it, be it on here, Reddit, or else where… Pull the fucking plug and let everything go for a bit. Decompress. You don’t have to be online and connected to everything every minute of your boredom or free time.
      There’s no lockdown anymore. Go touch grass.

    • MrShankles@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The anti maskers/vaxxers are just loud and like to make their opinion known. I don’t really give a fuck anymore who wears a mask or not, I just stay safe and try to keep others safe. People are gonna be dumb no matter what you do. Just wish they weren’t so fucking vocal about pushing misinformation, while being so confidently incorrect.

      I really like the KF94’s personally, they’re more comfortable for me. Definitely look into them if you haven’t already!

      Edit: By looking at your upvotes vs the loud minority, you can tell what people around here think lol. A lot of instances don’t allow downvotes (mine for one), so upvotes are the only option

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not an anti masker, wore mine for 3 solid years, but definitely tired of it. And we can’t wear a mask forever.

      I can understand if I’m sick or regularly near someone who is sick, but day to day is too much. Especially in my line of work, where I’m working in the heat doing physical work.

      • foo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t we wear masks in public forever? Do you wear pants in public? Shoes?

        If you are in an open space outdoors distanced from people, like most hard labor, you probably don’t need to be masked. But white collar jobs in coffee proximity to each other?

        • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I should ask this, how long do you typically wear a mask for when you do wear one?

          I had to wear it for 8-12 hours a day while at work. My sinuses were clogged up by the end of the day, acne all over my face, and the mask venting into my eyes was causing an stye to develop on my eyelid.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol not really how it works in a society with choices that kill people. Driving without a seatbelt is illegal. Drinking and driving is illegal.

    • Piers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      KF94’s are also equally effective (and similar in comfort to KN95’s.) There are concerns about counterfeits of KN95’s in general and masks made in China in general though so KR95’s (Korean) made in Korea or n95s made not in China are more reliable options.

      Even a counterfeit mask claiming to be any of the above is likely to be alrightish and far better than nothing.

      What you want to look for generally is a triple-layer (or more) mask that is made from non-woven/melt-blown material that gets a good seal. Beyond that just finding something you can afford, reliably get and feel comfortable wearing are kind of the next most important things to look for (the mask you wear is always better than the one you don’t!)

      • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        False information. Masks made in China are perfectly fine. The majority of N95 respirators (and masks in general) are made in China. In fact the numbers in the name is part of the Chinese Filtration Index.

        KN95, KN95S, KR95, KF94 all follow the same index.

        N95 respirators will always be the best option, but they require a shaved face and are very uncomfortable.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My issue with them is the plastic waste

      I think the newest Cochrane medical study rated n95 as 18% effective and regular masks 5% effective against covid, btw. Better than nothing, yes, but worth it?

      • Piers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the newest Cochrane medical study rated n95 as 18% effective and regular masks 5% effective against covid, btw.

        Lots of people seem to have picked up the idea that the recent Cochrane report states that the evidence shows masks not to be effective that but it is a misunderstanding (largely it just seems to claim that the various studies it found on the various topics they were looking at were mostly useless for drawing any sort of conclusion about the matter.)

        Directly from the horse’s mouth: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

        The text of the statement on the matter from Cochrane from the above link:

        Statement on ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’ review logo

        The Cochrane Review ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses’ was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted.

        Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:

        "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

        It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

        The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: ‘The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.’ Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

        The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that ‘We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.’ This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses."

    • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are not up to date. The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled and the biggest reviews of the literature strongly suggest that masks are not effective in preventing or slowing the spread of respiratory viruses. See below.

      https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

      The Cochrane Review is highly respected in the medical community. The authors, after a massive study, write the following:

      We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

      There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stop posting this all over the place. Masks clearly work, unless you like randos sneezing and coughing all over you. It catches all the phlegm.

        Also, it prevents the smells of anti-maskers from reaching your nose. They can be pretty bad. You wear clothes over literally every other part of your body. Why do you think your face is different?

        • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m all for wearing masks when needed but that last point is dumb. Facial expressions are a huge part of human communication.

        • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Stop posting something that, while scientific and deeply rigorous, goes against my deep seated and unchangeable views. I can’t handle it with my weak, feeble mind!”

          • Piers@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is scientific and rigorous. You’ve not understood it correctly and Cochrane have been explicit about the fact of that misunderstanding. They are not saying the things you think they are saying.

            • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The editor in chief was covering her ass due to the political nature of the results. All she attempts to say is “we don’t have conclusive evidence that masks are not effective”

              No shit. The review said the same thing. The point is that the large scale study showed no effects of masking. That is, they weren’t sure if they helped or not. That means there is no conclusive evidence, still, after 2 years, that masks are an effective population level intervention.

              “But I wear my cloth mask just to be safe.” Okay. You do you. But just know there is no conclusive evidence that it works. Might as well stay in your room, locked for life. Just to be safe.

          • DarthVader@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve been corrected multiple times with excerpts from the authors of the study you’re parroting all over this thread. And yet you just keep posting the same shit, not acknowledging the people who are refuting your claims.

            • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven’t been corrected. The farthest anyone has gone was post the editorial comment or highlight that the Cochrane review said “we don’t think masks made any difference but we don’t really know because we need more studies”. Don’t you think it’s pretty damning that, after 2 years, they still don’t know whether masks are effective at the population level? So you are just gonna argue “just to be safe!”

              No. I don’t live my life by that mantra. Read Haidt’s The coddling of the American mind.

      • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.”

        “Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators.”

        You failed to mention that part when you quoted the study. Good thing not everyone is a health care worker huh?

      • Durotar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The science on whether mass masking is effective is far from settled

        Be kind and wear a mask until it’s settled that they don’t help. What we know for sure is that it’s very hard to measure whether they’re effective or not.

        • Piers@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          FWIW, they definitely do work. The issue is that it’s quite hard to produce effective studies to confirm if they work one way or another to point to to say “see, we’ve proved they work, now put one on!”

      • Piers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        In addition to Macros’s comment explaining some of the details around what the specific claims of that report are, here is the statement from Cochrane explicitly saying that people have misunderstood the report in claiming it says masks aren’t effective (and taking ownership of the fact that this is at least in part because of issues with how clearly the report communicates it’s findings.)

        https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love this bit; “The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited.”

        So why, exactly, would you not err on the side of caution?

        This makes no sense.

        • Chipthemonk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To err always on the side of caution, especially when it comes to denying a very human expression (one’s face) is not a good way to live. If we erred on the side of caution for everything, it would be a meaningless life. Life involves risks. It’s very low risk to not wear a mask.