Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Your "COVID is the only thing that matters" or "I only discovered this topic because of COVID" bias is showing. You do know that you can search Google Scholar for pre-2019 papers, right? Example
covid isn't the only respiratory disease and non-covid illnesses are included in this cochrane review of physical interventions to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses which includes quite a few papers from before 2019, e.g., the exact paper you're linking in your comment
I guess it's a good thing the selected group to conduct the review knows about google scholar
You know that you can search for pre-2019 papers, right? Citing a post-COVID review is likely shot through with motivation, one way or the other. In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit. Not surprising, given the wide array of different situations/interventions/adherence that they're having to muddle through in this type of meta-review. My position is vastly smaller in scope and cannot be dismissed by simply citing such a large agglomerating meta-review. Masks/quarantining/such can have a small effect of reducing risks in small, discrete settings. That is saying nothing about widespread use, which is rife with all sorts of weird interactions, adherence effects, etc. We don't have to say anything about that mess of a problem to be able to say, "If your sister is sick, do you think you're more likely to catch the disease from her if you both just stay at your respective houses all week, or if she comes over and sleeps in your bed with you all week?" We don't need to say anything about that big mess of a problem to say, "If your sick sister comes over for a few hours, does wearing a mask for the short period of time and washing hands help your probability a little bit over hugging and kissing?"
The Cochrane review is nice because it lists a large bulk of articles, even excluded ones, which are cited for easy reading if you're inclined.
I'm sure there is motivation, for e.g., the main author on the paper you linked has received grants and worked as as consultant for 3M corporation, the largest maker of masks in the United States at the time. Did you know that? Did that make you think the paper was "shot through with motivation"?
Lucky for us, the list has other papers with the listed outcomes for you to look at which are pre-2019 and you can read them past the abstract.
this tends to happen when the passable positive studies find weak evidence of weak effects
when you're at the point when you're relying on a bundle of unseparated actions to make an "but of course ___" statement about any particular one let alone trying to pass off as a fair comparison masks vs kissing each other, you're at best just over your skis
in any case, thanks for the dialogue
Congrats! We agree!
and if we just ignore the larger group which found no effects, let alone account for noise even in the passable positive studies, it would be an easier question to answer
Nope. Not ignoring. Looking at the funnel plot. Weak evidence of weak positive effects. But, ya know, I already very clearly stated how my claim was different from the question that meta-review was analyzing. You seem to have not read it, so you're just sort of talking to yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link