That's a mischaracterization. The non-significant results are as a result of "intention to treat" analysis. ITT analysis considers a subject to be part of whatever group they are initially assigned, regardless of what treatment they ultimately receive and/or how adherent they are to the protocol. Some of those studies even note low adherence. You wouldn't expect masks to work if people don't wear them, would you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention-to-treat_analysis#Ad...

You don't understand medical literature. ITT is the standard -- you don't get to invent a magical world where everyone does whatever you tell them to do, and people frolic amongst the chocolate rivers and gumdrop trees. If people don't listen to your brilliant medical intervention after you make a best effort to get them to do so -- or don't do it "correctly" -- that's on you, not them.

Otherwise, I have a brilliant plan to end all obesity, worldwide: don't eat when you're fat. Guaranteed to work. If it fails, it's your fault for not following the plan.

Why is everyone you're referencing -- and for that matter, you too -- so damn hysterical? Vinay Prasad, case in point:

> When democratically elected systems transform into totalitarian regimes, the transition is subtle, stepwise, and involves a combination of pre-planned as well as serendipitous events. Indeed, this was the case with Germany in the years 1929-1939, where Hitler was given a chance at governing, the president subsequently died, a key general resigned after a scandal and the pathway to the Fuhrer was inevitable.

It's a mask & a vaccine, not the beginning of the Third Reich. The fact that your sources can't see the two as different things (and not as part of some slippery slope), tells me they've already arrived at a conclusion and will ignore all contrary evidence.

I know masks & vaccines feel oppressive -- but facts simply do not concern themselves with your feelings. There is a world of difference between the Third Reich and public health measures to slow the tide of preventable deaths. To be honest, I can't believe I'm having this debate here.

> Why is everyone you're referencing -- and for that matter, you too -- so damn hysterical?

I am calling for scientific studies. More data to justify our actions and guide our decisions. You are...calling me hysterical.

> you can barely say the results out loud lest you get silenced by the angry mob

Please -- you're not being silenced, you are not some martyr, people are just disagreeing with you.

For the record: I wasn't talking about me. There has been actual censorship throughout 2020. A lot of it, across all social-media platforms.

I'm sure the downvoting here has nothing to do with the fact that comments get sorted to the bottom and grayed out.

> I'm sure the downvoting here has nothing to do with the fact that comments get sorted to the bottom and grayed out.

Would you stop with the hysteria? You're getting downvoted not only because people disagree with you, but also because you've managed to turn that disagreement into some kind of cause for martyrdom.

> Would you stop with the hysteria?

To quote you:

"projection, plain & simple"

You really need to stop digging in.

People post scientific studies, and you repeatedly go back to the same person who has shown an obvious political bias against masks and vaccines to attempt to debunk them.

I'm just feeding into the problem by replying to you, but none of us can expect any discourse with you to be productive when you are working from a position that relies on believing someone acting in obvious bad faith.

Humans are meant to see faces. Requiring people, including kids, to wear them for 8+ hours a day with absolutely no metric to get rid of them is insanity. Especially when said people are fully vaccinated. Vaccinated individuals have no business wearing a mask, period.

I will repeat myself one more time:

Facts simply do not concern themselves with your feelings. I know it feels like oppression (a new Third Reich!!111!) & like there is no metric to get rid of masks, but your feelings alone do not make these true statements. The fact -- and we should concern ourselves with facts, not vague feelings or bouts of hysteria -- is that all of these measures will go away once the pandemic has abated to such an extent that it no longer poses a substantial threat to human lives. It's as simple as that: given that masks do an excellent job of slowing the spread, ceteris paribus, wearing a mask is better than not wearing one.

This kind of "feelings logic" is why Trump lost, more or less -- most people are willing to undergo mild inconvenience to save lives & slow the spread of a deadly virus. Despite the feelings of frustration, which we all have.

Facts don’t dictate policy. Even if masks were incredibly effective so some point we’d have to stop wearing them. Now that we have countless effective medical interventions, I’d say that time is now. Vaccinated individuals have zero business being required to wear masks. They’ve done their part and should be able to return to a fully normal life.

COVID is never going away. There is so much more to live for than being treated as a vector for exactly one disease.

And what I said is a value statement. Facts or science have nothing to do with it besides they guided and informed my opinions.

> Facts don’t dictate policy

They absolutely should, and I think this is an intractable disagreement we have. Sorry.

But I agree that COVID is never going away -- I'm saying that all of these measures should go away once the pandemic has abated to such an extent that it no longer poses a substantial threat to human lives. I.e. there is a version of COVID where we have tamed its lethality to the point where it's a shadow of its former self.

> I.e. there is a version of COVID where we have tamed its lethality to the point where it's a shadow of its former self.

We have that today.

> Facts don’t dictate policy.

And you don't see that as a problem?

> Vaccinated individuals have zero business being required to wear masks. They’ve done their part and should be able to return to a fully normal life.

Masks help prevent you from spreading the virus to other. As a vaccinated individual, you are highly unlikely to have serious illness from CV19, but you can still get it and spread it to others, even if you are only mildly symptomatic.

And this is based on data from the prior variants. Who knows how things are with Omicron - we need more data.

>Humans are meant to see faces.

Humans are/aren't meant to do X is a bad argument. We have made all sorts of behavioral changes over our time as a species. We adapt. I like having cars, and planes, and an industrialized society. But humans weren't "meant" to do any of that, until we did. All of these things have real, serious, drawbacks. But the overwhelming majority of people would agree that having these things is better than not having them.

If the new normal is to have a deadly and highly transmissible disease with us from now until forever, then yes, masks should also be the new normal. I don't think that's the case - the stakes and motivation for figuring out alternatives is quite high - but if it is, then, well, it's better than the alternative.

> masks should also be the new normaL

For those who wish to wear them, sure. But for those who don’t? That is fine too. Masks should be a personal choice at this point. Not something forced by the state.

We have vaccines. Getting one ends your obligation to participate in this Covid stuff. Forcing these NPI’s on vaccinated individuals is completely immoral in my opinion.

If wearing masks were solely a matter of your own personal protection, I would agree. Particularly since being vaccinated nearly eliminates your chances of having a serious covid infection.

But vaccines do not prevent you from catching and transmitting covid to others. And some people are precluded from getting vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons, same as they are precluded from other vaccines. A vaccinated person wearing a proper mask is less likely to transmit the virus to an unvaccinated person than they would be without the mask.

Your argument says we should be doing this forever. There will always be viruses that we transmit to each other. Always was. We never took this kind of moral grandstanding before. Why are we doing this for this one specific virus?

I’m sorry, your argument just doesn’t make sense. You are arguing we should always be masked forever.

>Your argument says we should be doing this forever.

Yes, I did say this is a possibility. I don't think it's likely, but it is a possibility.

>We never took this kind of moral grandstanding before. Why are we doing this for this one specific virus?

This is the first virus with this sort of reach in the era of modern science. It's pretty simple - we have never before had a virus that has infected and killed this many people while also having an understanding that masking cuts down on transmission rates.

>I’m sorry, your argument just doesn’t make sense.

You disagreeing with it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, it just means that you, for whatever reason, value people not having to wear a mask over cutting down on the loss of human life during a global pandemic.

>You are arguing we should always be masked forever.

If we live in a state of perpetual covid-esque pandemic from now until forever, yes, that would be a perfectly prudent thing to do.