What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?

[sl8]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-a-highly-publicized-covid-mask-analysis/

PUBLIC HEALTH

What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?

The Cochrane Library, a trusted source of health information, misled the public by prioritizing rigor over reality

By Naomi Oreskes on November 1, 2023
Scientific American November 2023 Issue

The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, but in May officials ended its designation as a public health emergency. So it's now fair to ask if all our efforts to slow the spread of the disease—from masking, to hand washing, to working from home—were worth it. One group of scientists has seriously muddied the waters with a report that gave the false impression that masking didn't help.

The group's report was published by Cochrane, an organization that collects databases and periodically issues “systematic” reviews of scientific evidence relevant to health care. This year it published a paper addressing the efficacy of physical interventions to slow the spread of respiratory illness such as COVID. The authors determined that wearing surgical masks “probably makes little or no difference” and that the value of N95 masks is “very uncertain.”

The media reduced these statements to the claim that masks did not work. Under a headline proclaiming “The Mask Mandates Did Nothing,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote that “the mainstream experts and pundits ... were wrong” and demanded that they apologize for the unnecessary bother they had caused. Other headlines and comments declared that “Masks Still Don't Work,” that the evidence for masks was “Approximately Zero,” that “Face Masks Made ‘Little to No Difference,’” and even that “12 Research Studies Prove Masks Didn't Work.”

Karla Soares-Weiser, the Cochrane Library's editor in chief, objected to such characterizations of the review. The report had not concluded that “masks don't work,” she insisted. Rather the review of studies of masking concluded that the “results were inconclusive.”

[...]

[hlthe2b]

1. Scientific communication is a highly specialized field that most who publish have little experience with

and tailor their study conclusions purely to other researchers/epidemiologists/scientists with no thought to how the MSM and the public will twist and misinterpret them. Ironically CDC trains their epidemiologists and others in this--at least to some extent, yet politics totally overwhelmed their efforts with respect to COVID-19. Cochrane's specialty is META analysis--a combination of studies to develop a singular analysis, which quite often utilizes apples and oranges methodologies. It can be a useful type of analysis but is beyond open to misinterpretation. Shame on the authors for letting this crap be published without substantial pre-planning and outreach to the media. Editors should have stepped in on the study's description of findings and limitations to make them clearer. And yes, Anthony Fauci (whom I have nothing but respect for) literally stepped into it when he tried to discuss this study and clarify the findings. Of all people who should be an absolute expert on scientific communication, these past years of abusive recriminations, accusations, and frankly, quite intentional misstating, and misinterpretation of his words have left a mark.

[viva la]

2. Demands an apology?

From hardworking public health officials trying to save lives?

These BRrett Stephens guy should have to do a shift in an ER.

[elias7]

4. As an ER Doc, I can tell you that I was absolutely protected by N95s. We all were (are)

Brett Stephens is just not a serious person, from a scientist’s POV. Sees what he wants to see, lacks curiosity or zeal for truth.

[snpsmom]

5. +1000

I masked at school long after others stopped. I'm convinced it kept my mom (COPD) and my husband (dilated cardiomyopathy) protected when kids and teachers around me repeatedly contracted COVID, but my family did not.

[onetexan]

8. It's safe to say that was the guy's intent

Mislead & dissuade ppl from wearing masks. I still wear mine religiously when i'm in public, & esp'ly when i travel by air.

[ariadne0614]

3. IOW

What went wrong with the analysis is that communication regarding its findings were, to put it kindly, mangled and misconstrued?

[ancianita]

6. She doesn't say that what went wrong was (and still are) corporate and media reality?

I learned from another DU'er about "lag time" -- it's a structural problem when a country this big has to solve crises, whether it's covid or climate.

That lag happens between public/private sector research/data gathering, public/private projections from that research/data, contracting manufacturing and ensuring delivery of remedy.

But then corporate bought political drama revs up to run obfuscation/denials/lies for the profit of "vested" corporate interests, which result in manufactured protests, government hearings, court challenges.

During the above lag time, when government’s working on answers and solutions,
corporate and its media swoop in with “answers” that they got from all this previous government effort to mitigate/end a crisis. Big Corps and their media present themselves as the cutting edge analysts and solvers of the crisis.

This scheme was run decades ago by tobacco and oil companies -- their "studies" found that "results are inconclusive," too.

We also get state level shenanigans during the lag, like the misspending of funds for other things like oligarchs -- or frauds the DOJ eventually catches -- at state levels.

Profiteers leverage time lag to make money with pretextual delays for as long as possible to enrich themselves.
They have state people make sure to get these "budget allowances" into legislation.

Nevertheless, government takes appropriate action, because government is the biggest at-scale delivery system of results for this country's humans.

It’s never long before those vested interests/consultants/lobbyists put out articles, media appearances, business conferences, where they point to the money appropriated for handling the covid drama they created -- THEN they say,
"Despite spending money, it didn't do any good and so further spending won't either.” .

Dutiful corporate lapdog "reporters" and "analysts" nod their heads, then move on to neverending stories that prop the "government is broken" national media message -- its variation on "government is the problem."

The corporate profit scheme for crises is to
-- never, ever, fail to claim that the necessary research/solution/delivery lag time was the government’s fault, and
-- always, always blame government when Democrats run it.

Thank you to the fellow DU'er who taught me this!

[genxlib]

7. There are two other factors that bugged me about this study and media frenzy that followed.

Like many of you, I was bombarded with the inevitable "I-told-you-so" postings from our friends and relatives.

I was fairly certain that there were flaws in how this was done but did not have the time or energy to continue this argument after 3+ years.

Even so, there were still two major responses I had even if the the study was well done.

1. If a policy fails, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad policy. The efficacy of the action matters. With 40% of our population actively circumventing and undermining the policy, who is to say whether it would have worked or not? Compliance was terrible and only got worse as the loud mouths tried to turn it into a personal rights issue instead of a public safety issue.

2. So what? Even if it turned out to be completely ineffective, we didn't know that at that time. Frankly, neither did the loud mouths that decided on day one that it wouldn't work. BY implementing the policy, our side was instituting some inconvenience for a huge possibility of life saving potential. Their side was advocating for no inconvenience with a potential downside of enormous additional casualties. Life is full of inconveniences that hedge against small chances of danger. We do it all the time from seat belts to safety gear to doctors check-ups. All of these people saying I told you so never want to answer the question of what would of happened if they got their way and were wrong in any significant way.