"After 2 years, growing calls to take masks off come from me, some other moms I found and a pediatrician. But most scientists I asked think masks are no big deal"
So why did this pointless article get published? 🧵npr.org/2022/01/28/107…
It should tell you something that Kerry Dingle, who the opening 5 paragraphs of this article are devoted to, feels the need to say that, though she thinks masks should be optional, she is not “anti-vax” or “psychotic.”
Having gotten that out of the way, Dingle quickly moves on to bemoan the “burdening” of little kids with "protecting other people”; namely, "high-risk people."
It’s ironic to talk of the high-risk as if they were the burden when, if I’m being honest, it’s the low risk that seem most burdensome at this point. Here I’m thinking of the low risk’s insatiable & ill-timed need to free themselves of pandemic paraphernalia (like masks).
But neither the author nor Dingle see themselves as the burden because, I guess, they are used to centering themselves in the world and then begrudging having to incorporate “other people” like “high-risk people” into it.
"Isn’t it enough that these pesky others 'can protect themselves' by getting vaccinated – what else could high-risk people possibly want?", you can hear Dingle ask between the lines while the author nods along.
Even putting aside the casual ableism, kids under 5 can’t protect themselves. Neither can children of anti-vax parents. So yeah, I’m not buying the whole “little kids” vs. “high-risk people” epic showdown vibe of Dingle. But back to more mundane complaints.
Panning out from the Dingle-eye view, we see that there are anti-mask mandates groups, pro-N95 groups and a third group that’s both anti-mask and pro-vaccine. They are “getting louder” we are told.
How could we not know they are loud? After all, we are stuck reading this article & not some other, more interesting article about, say, pandemics and airborne infection. No, we are stuck in an eternal hell of privileged people speaking loudly about things that bum them out.
But who am I to make light of bummers? Good masks are hard to find. There. That’s surely a problem. Jeremy Howard, a data scientist, thinks so too.
Howard says if kids can’t find good masks, this is a “huge issue” because “Kids are being left unprotected.” Howard says this as if lack of protection is a problem, not realizing that this is the goal.
Moving on, Danny Benjamin, a pediatrician, admits transmission is lowered by mandating that kids wear masks in school.
But that’s “impractical” Benjamin says as if the standard of pandemic protection was the “practical” shoes a grandmother might wear. Benjamin adds that kids find masks "uncomfortable", as if he hadn’t noticed that kids get used to wearing braces, on their teeth, of all things.
Masks also have to be “replaced often” Benjamin says wrongly.
Bernadette Ngoh wants to know, “What do we do with all the kids that are unable to wear the mask…?”
Brittany Gonzalez then appears, as if on cue, to answer that, for the kids who are unable, masks are not required. Good idea; but maybe add better ventilation.
"What about brains?" you ask. Isn’t it “harder to hear and understand speech and identify facial expressions and emotions when people are wearing masks?”
I don’t know how to answer this honestly. It’s harder to eat with plastic spoons. It’s harder to run than to walk. Is it super hard? No. And by the way, there are entire countries where half the population wears head coverings and they have children whose brains are just fine.
But the problem of brains, whatever it is, hasn’t gone away which leaves Manfred Spitzer, a psychiatrist and a cognitive neuroscientist, to give it a try.
Spitzer valiantly invokes some sort of Darwinian, quasi-evolutionary anti-mask argument saying “Babies were never designed to just see the upper half of the face...” So please, nobody show Mr. Spitzer forks and spoons or, come to think of it, the Olympics.
Granting the “babies aren’t designed for masks point”, they sure do pretty well with them which seems important.
The rest of the article goes on to be more specific about problems that don’t exist, or that have obvious solutions like using microphones to hear mask-muffled-voices or reducing background noise.
Even Spitzer, our evolutionary “What are babies designed for?” theorist, admits that the challenges masks present are manageable.
In which case, really, if masks are manageable, can be done with these small problems with easy solutions and get on to dealing with the big problem we have now; namely, the pandemic?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@ShiraDoronMD et al argue against universal masking in healthcare based on 2 claims: 1) transmission risk from HCWs w/out symptoms is low 2) vaccination is sufficienly protective against hospital-acquired infection.
These claims are both knowably, provably wrong.
@AnnalsofIM
🧵
To establish their first claim, that the risk of transmission from HCWs without symptoms is low, the authors cite two sources: a) Killingley and b) Tayyar.
But a) Killingley does NOT show presymptomatic transmission risk is small. What Killingley actually shows is that, what the authors pass off as "minimal presymptomatic shedding," is consistent with **44% of transmission occuring presymptomatically**.
In honor of @TracyBethHoeg’s new anti-mask propaganda/preprint, I compiled her Tweets on mask studies into a textbook I’m calling, “Confounders: A Matter of Convenience.” It’s an expose of Hoeg’s bad faith hypocrisy. 🧵
Here’s the title page with a table of contents.
CHAPTER I:
HOW TO PROTEST PRO-MASK STUDIES
It's easy! Just complain the conclusion doesn’t hold because the data is confounded! 1. Eg. The Boston Mask Study
The moral panic over school closures has left us with problems more intractable than they were pre-pandemic because now, to solve those problems, we first have to dispel lies. That school is a preventative to suicide is a reprehensible distortion, but it is not the only one. 🧵
There is the hysteria over how closures hurt minorities the most which obscures that, for minorities, school is the source of a problem: the school-to-prison pipeline. nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opi…
There is the hysteria that closures are causing obesity which obscures the problem of fatty, nutritionally bankrupt cafeteria food. nypost.com/2019/11/16/the…
Following a lead in @mehdirhasan's receipt-riddled expose, I looked into FL's deadly summers but in terms of excess deaths (Hasan uses C0VID deaths) in the 10 US states with the highest percentage of seniors. Tl;dr: DeSantis won't be using these stats on the campaign trail. 🧵
The long list of concerns downplayers coopted for the sake of opening schools and then quickly abandoned: learning loss that didn't carry over to C0VID related cognitive declines, newsinfo.inquirer.net/1639956/omicro…
Shenoy et al urge abandoning universal masking on the grounds masks have little benefit & some harm. Yesterday I showed they're wrong about benefits. Today I show they're wrong about harms. Their strongest evidence favors masks. The rest has little relation to their ambitions. 🧵
In making the case that masks harm, the authors use three sources.
In Cormier et al patients & providers rate their masked & unmasked encounters in terms of communication difficulties. Using scales from 1-5 (patients) or from 1-6 (providers) participants are asked about eg. listening effort, ability to connect, understand & recall.