I've read a bunch of the studies in full. You'd have to be more specific about what part you think is junk.
There could be all sorts of reasons (even psychological) that could account for reduced transmission when all people are wearing masks, as it is a constant annoying ass reminder for muh social distancing. People let their guard down when they feel normal, so stuffing that stupid fucking cloth on everyone's face keeps 'em in line. I can tell you that there are definitely studies that show cloth masks are fucking worthless (both individually from a material standpoint as well as a public policy position). Yet, CDC picked the ones that showed they had a positive effect. From a bureaucratic public policy position, they can claim they did "everything they could" to recommend reducing the spread. Of course, the studies are limited in scope to transmission and makes zero consideration for any other systemic consequences.
I've also read many of the studies in full and found most of it an insult to science. For instance, every study that claimed "masks reduce spread by X%" were either a) bullshit modeling studies, or b) studies which conflated the result of all mitigation measures to be as a result of mask wearing.
All empirical studies about masks that and the spread of respiratory illness that I read showed either no statistical difference, an incredibly weak one (n=16, p=0.04), or sketchy analysis to prove their case. That's a huge reason this year has felt like 1984 to me. Everyone is blasting "MASK UP! LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, BIGOT! SAVE GRANDMA!" but the 'science' is a fucking joke.
If you can show me the study that you found convincing I'd love to see it. I want to either be convinced or blast the 'science' full of holes
If you can show me the study that you found convincing I'd love to see it.
Oh, just to be clear - I wasn't ever convinced by studies that support mask mandates. The CDC usually cites the studies they reference to justify their policy positions, so all you would have to do is click on the links they provide. That's what convinced them, so they should really be the gold standard of the "best study" (or else they wouldn't have picked it).
I can't follow your reasoning. Why does the CDC selecting a study make it the "gold standard"? I'll admit that I only skimmed their selections but did not see anything particularly persuasive. No RCT studies in that list (because every RCT study spanning back to 1980 has shown the opposite of the CDC's position).
I've read a bunch of the studies in full. You'd have to be more specific about what part you think is junk.
There could be all sorts of reasons (even psychological) that could account for reduced transmission when all people are wearing masks, as it is a constant annoying ass reminder for muh social distancing. People let their guard down when they feel normal, so stuffing that stupid fucking cloth on everyone's face keeps 'em in line. I can tell you that there are definitely studies that show cloth masks are fucking worthless (both individually from a material standpoint as well as a public policy position). Yet, CDC picked the ones that showed they had a positive effect. From a bureaucratic public policy position, they can claim they did "everything they could" to recommend reducing the spread. Of course, the studies are limited in scope to transmission and makes zero consideration for any other systemic consequences.
I've also read many of the studies in full and found most of it an insult to science. For instance, every study that claimed "masks reduce spread by X%" were either a) bullshit modeling studies, or b) studies which conflated the result of all mitigation measures to be as a result of mask wearing.
All empirical studies about masks that and the spread of respiratory illness that I read showed either no statistical difference, an incredibly weak one (n=16, p=0.04), or sketchy analysis to prove their case. That's a huge reason this year has felt like 1984 to me. Everyone is blasting "MASK UP! LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, BIGOT! SAVE GRANDMA!" but the 'science' is a fucking joke.
If you can show me the study that you found convincing I'd love to see it. I want to either be convinced or blast the 'science' full of holes
Oh, just to be clear - I wasn't ever convinced by studies that support mask mandates. The CDC usually cites the studies they reference to justify their policy positions, so all you would have to do is click on the links they provide. That's what convinced them, so they should really be the gold standard of the "best study" (or else they wouldn't have picked it).
I can't follow your reasoning. Why does the CDC selecting a study make it the "gold standard"? I'll admit that I only skimmed their selections but did not see anything particularly persuasive. No RCT studies in that list (because every RCT study spanning back to 1980 has shown the opposite of the CDC's position).