No, because that's not what the 11% number was measuring. You can't just take an 11% relative reduction in population seroprevalence at a given time, and then blindly multiply the virus R0 by that factor. They observed a drop in symptomatic seroprevalence that corresponded to about 1 case for for every 1300 people who wore a mask. That is nowhere near an 11% drop in R0 (which you'll recall is an exponent).
> That's exactly what is wrong with all these discussions, the cost of wearing a mask is negligible compared the potential cost of not wearing a mask:
How do you know? Have you measured it? No, of course you haven't. You're just asserting things.
> so wear a mask. It doesn't matter if it is proven to help yet or not, the fact that it may help and won't harm is the only thing that matters when deciding whether or not you should wear one.
Fine. You should take Ivermectin, then. And vitamin D. And flush your sinuses daily with a neti pot. And get your chakra aligned. It's essentially the same argument. Can't hurt, might help! By your logic, it all must be done.
...or do you just pick-and-choose which unsupported interventions you prefer to believe in?
(for the record: I do not believe you should take Ivermectin. But it is the same argument.)
> the evidence quality for Ivermectin is substantially lower than that,
It really isn't. Just like mask studies, there are a few weakly suggestive good ones, and a few bad ones that make ridiculous claims, and a whole lot of nonsense in between.
> there are substantial downsides to using it in quantity.
No, not really. It's a pretty common, safe drug. We probably know more about the downsides of Ivermectin than we do about the downsides of (say) masking young children in school.
You are also continuously seeking reasons to justify the way you have already decided you want to go about this, so effectively you are just arguing for your own satisfaction, not to gain insight.
Your arguments by assertion hold no water for me. Good luck with this attitude.
If you are arguing anything else than you aren't actually being consistent in your reasoning.
Risks are also low for eating 50 Kg of bananas, it might cure COVID, so why not try it? This sort of reasoning is complete nonsense when it comes to picking your medications.
The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard. Anything less simply won't do. 'Might work' isn't a reason for (self) prescription.
As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work. Like everything else in terms of countermeasures, absolutely nothing will be a 100% sure filter so we layer multiple filters on top of each other to improve the degree of protection we achieve, aka the cheese model.
It's interesting how you say that so definitively, when there are multiple, large RCTs ongoing, evaluating the question.
Perhaps you're substituting your opinions for science?
> The null hypothesis is "it does not work". Then you carefully design a study to take care of all the variables, you do your double blind test with a placebo and you look at outcomes. That's the standard.
> As for mask effectiveness: they work, there is ongoing debate over how much they work.
Funny how "the standard" shifts from topic to topic, sentence to sentence. When it's an intervention you support, the presumption is positive, even if the collective evidence of effect is...mixed, at best.
So these studies are in the realm of 'we can't rule it out 100% let's check one more time'. Since this is a forum and not a scientific paper I can claim with some confidence that it isn't going to work, if you want to take the opposite side of that bet be my guest.
Masks work, whether it is 10% or 15% effective is what's at stake there, not whether they work or not. If ivermectin was 10% effective it would have been established long ago.
You are guilty of exactly those things that you accuse me of.
timr took the effort to correct you point-for-point. You come back with "Fine! I'll take my ball and go home then!"
I'm not sure what made you dig in your heels like that (personal reasons?), but to good-faith bystanders your arguments appear petty and unreasonable.
Somehow I start to suspect that masks might have a similar effectiveness that are dependant on climate, air humidity and widespread co-infections. Maybe not effective against covid but might prevent other infections that ultimately make covid worse or make them more susceptible to covid.
I'm generally in support of the masking rules BUT I also have a very young baby and there is definitely a high cost for him. Not seeing a smile when he is left at daycare has caused him to cry more than once, I don't even want to think about the long term effects of seeing so much less facial expression in his critical first months.
I know this is a talking point of anti-maskers but let's not pretend all of the other side's arguments are bogus _because_ they made it. This is just one example, there _is_ a cost to masking up the entire population.
That's exactly what is wrong with all these discussions, the cost of wearing a mask is negligible compared the potential cost of not wearing a mask: so wear a mask. It doesn't matter if it is proven to help yet or not, the fact that it may help and won't harm is the only thing that matters when deciding whether or not you should wear one.
As for the rest of your comment, the evidence quality for Ivermectin is substantially lower than that, so low that it drowns in the noise and is essentially a complete wash, and there are substantial downsides to using it in quantity.