Great Barrington Declaration

[joshs]

Re-Edited Edit:



Doesn't that article imply that The Lancet put methods ahead of politics? If afterall, neither The Lancet or the original authors retracted the study and at best you can quote some tangential third or parties saying, "It's a good journal."

Just because the authors of the original study didn't agree with the hook and sinker line of NRA politics doesn't actually mean the journal is "putting politics above methods". You guys managed to find plenty to cite in there that was positive...you guys argue that others have a political agenda to oppose the parts of the study convenient for your agenda, but argue simultaneously that the study is flawed, because it has parts that don't agree with your agenda.

It seems like the NRA not The Lancet put politics ahead of methods and data...

I'd say I was surprised, but I am not. The NRA is clearly all for maintaining ignorance...

I think you missed the sarcasm in citing the positives for gun owners in their findings. When David Hemenway and Daniel Webster agree with us that that we can't understand how a study got published, I think that's saying something.

Do you not agree that the claim that implementation of three gun control measures reducing overall firearm mortality by 90% is absurd?

[Sensei]

My take is as follows:

1) This is a novel respiratory virus and we are a population with very little if any native immunity. The early predictions of 70-80% of the population eventually coming in contact with the virus were probably correct, and little is known about re-infection susceptibility or what will be needed to achieve heard immunity (or if that is even possible).

2) Physical distancing is effective at reducing transmission rates, but there has been no compelling evidence that we can (or could have) eliminated the virus from our environment with lockdowns. Moreover, austere physical distancing has unintended health effects that are likely under-reported.

3) N95 and surgical masks are probably effective at reducing the rate of transmission. Little is known how these masks perform when reused. There is also very little data to suggest that cloth masks or bandannas are effective at reducing spread.

Given those 3 points, I see no reason for austere physical distancing unless healthcare resources are be strained. That is because such distancing will not reduce the number being infected, it just spreads is out over a more manageable time. In addition, N95 or surgical masks are probably very prudent if large gatherings can’t be avoided or physical distancing is impractical. I recommend surgical masks or N95 when healthcare resources are constrained or for populations at risk for severe symptoms (elderly, obese, etc.). Wearing a cloth mask while mowing your yard or walking in the park is probably a waste in terms of preventing Covid.

[randyho]

The Lancet is an extremely well respected biomedical journal.

Perhaps it was.

[RevolverRob]

I think you missed the sarcasm in citing the positives for gun owners in their findings. When David Hemenway and Daniel Webster agree with us that that we can't understand how a study got published, I think that's saying something.

Is that actually meant to be sarcasm, or is it just what the Copy Editor with Aspergers thinks is sarcasm?

Oh wait, I get it...the sarcastic part is at the end when you guys laud your efforts to maintain ignorance over data and efforts to study the world...

Do you not agree that the claim that implementation of three gun control measures reducing overall firearm mortality by 90% is absurd?

I refuse to provide any opinion about this or any other study without reading the actual source material and evaluating it.

Other people should do the same and always read and critically evaluate the source. But scientific illiteracy is a real problem in the United States.

However, I think we can make it better, what with the pro-science and anti-ignorance stance the NRA takes on issues. (<-That is how you do sarcasm, send this example to your copy editor.)

[joshs]

Is that actually meant to be sarcasm, or is it just what the Copy Editor with Aspergers thinks is sarcasm?

Oh wait, I get it...the sarcastic part is at the end when you guys laud your efforts to maintain ignorance over data and efforts to study the world...



I refuse to provide any opinion about this or any other study without reading the actual source material and evaluating it.

Other people should do the same and always read and critically evaluate the source. But scientific illiteracy is a real problem in the United States.

However, I think we can make it better, what with the pro-science and anti-ignorance stance the NRA takes on issues. (<-That is how you do sarcasm, send this example to your copy editor.)

My phone isn't letting me select text in your quote for some reason, so please excuse the block quote.

I'm the editor, but I likely am on the spectrum.

I've actually read the study, but I encourage you to do so and let me know what you think. I admittedly think very little of most social science research methods, especially those engaging in cross sectional analysis (under or misspecification are almost always present).

I'll have to double-check, but I believe they misspecified several very important variables because they didn't account for states that have a given law by case law rather than statute. That's a pretty common problem when researchers have little or no legal background.

I don't have access to the study at home, but I don't even think they attempted any type of difference-in-difference analysis.

I also have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for NRA's interests, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is regarding us not being objective. I thought that was understood.

[Erik]

Wearing a cloth mask while mowing your yard or walking in the park is probably a waste in terms of preventing Covid.

Do you think this is true with respect to preventing or reducing transmission of the virus? I've found the argument that cloth masks reduce transmission pretty compelling in part because it simply makes sense to me...which means exactly nothing, I know. I'd like to know what you think about it.

[RevolverRob]

My phone isn't letting me select text in your quote for some reason, so please excuse the block quote.

I'm the editor, but I likely am on the spectrum.

Your sarcasm needs work. .

I've actually read the study, but I encourage you to do so and let me know what you think. I admittedly think very little of most social science research methods, especially those engaging in cross sectional analysis (under or misspecification are almost always present).

I'll have to double-check, but I believe they misspecified several very important variables because they didn't account for states that have a given law by case law rather than statute. That's a pretty common problem when researchers have little or no legal background.

I don't have access to the study at home, but I don't even think they attempted any type of difference-in-difference analysis.

I can appreciate a nuanced dissection of someone else's analysis. Having not undertaken it myself, you'll understand that I am not willing to provide an opinion here on a publicly accessible forum. Being a professional scientist I have had my own work and words misrepresented more often than not and I would not want to provide an opinion on something I have not read.

In general I'd be willing to believe your break down of the piece, but of course, I will remain skeptical because...

I also have an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for NRA's interests

so I'm not exactly sure what your point is regarding us not being objective. I thought that was understood.

No, that is completely understood.

You understand that from an intellectual and professional perspective I have an obligation to remain as objective as possible. It's not always possible, of course, but it's what I strive for.

My point, slightly buried is as a result, there is bound to be friction, due to each of us having opposed perspectives on the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.

[Sensei]

Do you think this is true with respect to preventing or reducing transmission of the virus? I've found the argument that cloth masks reduce transmission pretty compelling in part because it simply makes sense to me...which means exactly nothing, I know. I'd like to know what you think about it.

Yes.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article

In 2015, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of cloth masks with that of medical masks and controls (standard practice) among healthcare workers in Vietnam (4). Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups. This finding suggests that risk for infection was higher for those wearing cloth masks.

[Erik]

Thanks. The quoted text seems to indicate that the risk of contracting an infectious disease was higher for cloth mask wearers. The same article also says:

One study tested medical masks and several household materials for the ability to block bacterial and viral aerosols. Participants made masks from different materials, and all masks tested showed some ability to block the microbial aerosol challenges although less than that of medical masks. Another study found that homemade cloth masks may also reduce aerosol exposure although less so than medical masks and respirators. [footnotes omitted]

My understanding has been that because cloth masks block aerosols, they reduce transmission of the virus. That is, if someone who is infected wears a cloth mask, they will spread the virus less than if they go unmasked. The linked article seems to support that.

[Bio]

Thanks. The quoted text seems to indicate that the risk of contracting an infectious disease was higher for cloth mask wearers. The same article also says:



My understanding has been that because cloth masks block aerosols, they reduce transmission of the virus. That is, if someone who is infected wears a cloth mask, they will spread the virus less than if they go unmasked. The linked article seems to support that.

I'm pretty sure you're right about that. Basically, N95 is the best of the non-industrial masks, then surgical, then cloth. Cloth is still better than nothing.


Edit, got the original cited article on work computer:

MacIntyre, CR etc al 2015, BMJ Open

The main, non-obvious issue from the short summary linked earlier in this article was that the control group wasn't "no masks" it was "do what you would do normally". That means the participants did what they wanted. Of 458 members of the control group, 245 used both types of masks, probably depending on local availability (my own guess), 3 used n95s, 2 used no masks at all. The remainder of the control group used some kind of mask, but I couldn't find what type. The test groups (cloth or surgical, about 500 each) were given masks to use for the time of study.

What this means isn't that cloth masks were compared to a control of non-masked users, it's that cloth masks were compare to a control of a mix of cloth and surgical, with <1% N95 or maskless. So its obvious from more study that surgical was notably better than cloth, but its not obvious how cloth compares to maksless. Probably because you can't ask healthcare workers to stop making up because you want to know what will happen.