|
|
|
|
|
by JackeJR
2288 days ago
|
|
I don't think the parent's point was that we ignore evidence but that in the absence of evidence (as opposed to evidence suggesting the contrary), we should use priors to guide what we do. In this case, while there are no double blind randomised studies that suggest that widespread mask use reduces R0, priors tell us that masks use protect against infection in other settings. If we were to weigh the priors, the existing evidence would be leaving towards mask use having a protective effect. The question that we should ask ourselves is, what if the reality turns out to be different? There are 2 scenarios. First, mask use is harmful and the second, mask use has no effect on transmission. The first is very unlikely given what we know and the second will mean that if mask use is encouraged, it will be wasted resources for no gain. If these resources that were wasted were easily obtainable i.e. masks made of old clothing etc, then the downsides aren't serious at all but could have very good upsides if the priors were right. So I agree, that we should encourage widespread home-made masks use and leave the disposable ones to the healthcare workers. |
|