A REVIEW OF BAD ARGUMENTS AGAINST FACE MASKS

1/ They don't fully protect you from virus in the air.

Yes, but their point is to prevent as much virus as possible from getting in the air in the first place.

(thread)
2/ There is this Randomized Control Trial I see posted on Twitter which allegedly shows that face masks do not work.

That trial shows that face masks do not protect doctors from patients *that do not wear face masks*.

Such studies do not demonstrate that face masks don't work.
3/ Paradoxically, the more you believe that someone wearing face masks is only partially protected, the more you should want everyone to wear them, so that there is less virus in the air.

That's how real herd immunity works.
4/ Second bad argument: countries using masks are still hit by a second wave, so they do not work.

By that reasoning, brakes do not work because all cars have them and crashes still occur.

Face masks might not be sufficient, but this does not imply that they're not useful.
5/ Third bad argument: people don't wear them properly.

As long as people wear them above the nose, they prevent sneezes from reaching people 1m away.
That alone would justify wearing them.

And even just on the mouth they reduce the reach of cough.
6/ Fourth bad argument: masks are hazards because people touch them while taking them off and get contaminated.

Perhaps, but the virus that landed on the face mask would have landed on the nose or mouth, if the mask hadn't been there. Hardly a better outcome.
7/ Moreover, the same applies to glasses 🤓 and phones.

But I never heard anyone saying that people shouldn't use glasses because they are a contamination hazard.

(BTW, people, please consider washing glasses and phones when you get back home from outside)
8/ Fifth bad argument: face-mask compliance cannot realistically reach 100%.

It does in some Asian countries, so it could.

But even assuming it cannot in the Western World, that doesn't imply that we shouldn't recommend them or even mandate them.
9/ Again: the more you believe that some people won't or cannot wear them, the more you should insist for everyone else to wear them.

That's how real herd immunity works: those who cannot or won't get vaccinated are protected by those who can and do.
10/ Sixth bad argument: masks cause CO2 build-ups.

They probably do, but minimally and over long-term use only. I do not think that this is a significant health hazard for most people – otherwise how could doctors and other professionals wear them for full shifts for decades?
11/ Even if wearing face-masks did have a small negative health effect, this by no means implies that their net effect is negative.

Catching and spreading the virus has far worse negative effects.
12/ Seventh bad argument: no randomized control trial showed that masks work.

This is a terrible argument for two reasons

The first one is that the costs of wearing face-masks is low and bounded, whereas the costs of not wearing them is high and unbounded (the pandemic growing)
13/ This means that the burden of the proof should be on those who are against face masks, and that they should prove that their negative effects are larger than their positive ones.

This is tricky though, for the former are constant whereas the latter are fat-tailed.
14/ The second reason is that such an RCT should not only involve participants wearing masks, but it should ensure that they only interact with people wearing masks, and that they do so in a real-world setting (i.e. no lab) AND that they do so in a virally-charged environment.
15/ Good luck satisfying all 4 conditions at the same time.

Any study that doesn't cannot claim that it proved that masks aren't effective in the real world.
16/ Why did I say that the RCT has to take place in a real-world setting?

Because in real life, you meet tons of people a few minutes at a time (e.g. in the bus, at the grocer, etc).

This is completely different from a hospital where you meet the same few people for days.
17/ If masks are partially but not fully effective, they would work great in the first scenario (real-life) but terribly in the second one (lab).

Hence why I'm skeptical of "face-masks do not work" studies made in labs.
18/ Eight bad argument: my friend always wears face-masks and yet he got sick.

Yes, I also know someone who drives carefully and got hit by a reckless driver.

Your friend probably got sick because someone else wasn't wearing face-masks. (or he got it at the restaurant, etc.)
19/ A clarification. In tweet #10, when I said “they probably do”, I misspoke. I was thinking about “even if they do”.

I’ve seen no evidence that they do.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Luca-Dellanna.com

Luca-Dellanna.com Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DellAnnaLuca

20 Oct
So, earlier today I posted a wrong tweet, which I then deleted. Thankfully, it only stayed on for a few minutes.

But I think it's important that I explain what I got wrong and why, for some could benefit too.

(thread)
2/ I was commenting on this chart.

I correctly pointed out that the increase is relative. For example, it doesn't mean that more young people died than old.

However, I also wrongly added that the chart showed the increase in COVID risk for the young.

3/ I didn't consider that young adults tend to die of causes such as cancer that got impacted negatively by the lockdown (no cures)

The chart being about all-mortality, & the absolute number of young adults deaths being fairly low, the *direct* contribution of COVID might be low
Read 7 tweets
17 Oct
In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.

Here is an example of why.

There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
Why is it important to care about small HSE violations in manufacturing companies?
Shouldn't we only care about injuries & deaths?

Only if we want the company to fail and workers to die.

(thread)
2/ Yesterday, I pointed out that a famous automotive company has a lot of OSHA violations. The most common response I got is that those relate to meaningless violations.

Perhaps. But only in a theoretical ideal world, meaningless violations are unrelated to incidents.
3/ In the real world, incidents *approximately* follow a pyramid as the below one (image from my book gum.co/opexbook).

The more "meaningless violations" a company has, the more a big incident is waiting to happen.
Read 7 tweets
3 Oct
I agree. Plenty of exceptions (that might be over-represented in my Twitter audience) but for most businesses, the below holds.

(Thread with motivations, 1/6)
2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.

3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)
Read 7 tweets
1 Oct
WHY DO WE ENGAGE IN SELF-HARM?

The reason is that we do not seek survival, but what feels like survival.

Any action that produces the same neurochemicals that we associate to pro-survival actions produces changes in our brain that make us desire it.

For example,

(thread, 1/N)
2/ For example, sugar gives us energy, and we need energy to survive.

When we eat sugar, our brain feels like we are increasing our chances of survival, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS THE CASE.

When we slowly kill ourselves through metabolic diseases, it still feels like survival.
3/ Our ancestors whose genes made them produce behavioral-reinforcing chemicals when they did something that increased their survival also tended to survive more.

Hence those genes spread. We ended up desiring repeating the actions that produced those neurochemicals.
Read 6 tweets
29 Sep
Natural selection is inevitable, but we can choose whether it acts on us (bad) or within us (good).

Up to a point, of course, but imagine a company:

If uncompetitive, the market's meritocracy bankrupts it

But the company can protect itself by letting meritocracy work inside it
2/ Natural Selection acts on any entity and within any population.

The monolithic only suffers from NS, whereas populations suffer but also benefit from it.

In fact, the monolithic is fragile whereas populations can be antifragile.

We can apply this insight by realizing that…
3/ if we consider ourselves a population (of habits & beliefs), we can let natural selection remove those that are bad for us, making us stronger. It acts within us

Instead if we consider ourselves a monolithic identity, we cannot grow. We become the victims of natural selection
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!