[kgarten]

For me that these papers get accepted is rather a sign that scientific consensus is on the side of masks work.

Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know). Seeing also the pre-prints that were in the article that you dismissed as "news article." and others it seems a strong indication that most virologists and epidemiologists think masks work.

They might be wrong, yet I haven't heard any convincing theory or model on why that should be the case.

[timr]

> For me that these papers get accepted is rather a sign that scientific consensus is on the side of masks work.

Well that's a great way to confirm your biases. The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe, that infection was transmitted by miasma, that plate tectonics were a crackpot theory...I could go on.

Science is the history of well-controlled experiment overturning consensus thinking.

In any case, editorial review is a human process, and like all human processes, has ample sources of error. In this case, a big source of error is that the major scientific journals have spent the better part of 2020 falling all over themselves to publish garbage about Covid that gets press hits.

> Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know).

This obviously isn't true in this case. The pandemic hasn't been around for that long!

Also, no, it doesn't take 2-5 years to put together an editorial. Even in normal times.

[kgarten]

> The "scientific consensus" was that the earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, and then somebody found a better model (that's also still wrong) yet explained more and we used it. So my question, what's your better model you base your assumptions on? Any scientific paper is wrong, you can find problems with any of them. Just, critique is easy and often doesn't lead anywhere.

my point: The scientific consensus right now is wearing masks help. This is supported by physics (particle simulations), medicine (respiratory disease and their transmission .. and a lot of other fields.

You say there's little data ... come on than make this > well-controlled experiment overturning consensus thinking

you can be famous!

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/10/22/national/scienc...

Check the video, people are trying what would be an experimental setup you would accept? That is also ethically OK.

We have both controlled experiments that have reduced validity in the real world because of the artificial conditions and we have some more messy real world evidence. Seems OK to me.

The people I see on the other side don't offer an alternative model. Also a lot of the criticism comes from people who don't seem to have virology /immunology etc background.

> Usually, it takes 2 -5 years to get a nature paper ready (at least for the labs I know).

Yes, my point was these papers are rushed. It can be bias, it can be also that reviewers have their expertise that tells them the paper fits the evidence.

Change happens over models/explanations. I don't see any new ones from the "Masks don't work" folks. Just criticism (that's easy ... I'm happy to point out all the flaws in any paper you present me. If you want to kill a paper in peer review it's super easy ...)

For policy decisions shouldn't you use the current scientific consesus,however flawed it is? Is there a better solution? Otherwise you are just relying on your gut feeling. Good luck.

[kgarten]

forgot: here's the paper (it's just mentioned in Japanese in the video) https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20

your controlled experiment with Sars-COV-2 particles :)

[timr]

from the paper (emphasis mine):

> Here, we developed an airborne transmission SIMULATOR of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission.

Mannequin heads in a box is perhaps evidence of something, but it has little to do with actual humans who don't live in tiny boxes with masks sealed to their real-world faces.

[kgarten]

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

Another one ...

[kgarten]

lol ... yes simulations and models are completely useless (wake up: ALL models are wrong, but some are useful). If you cannot come up with a better explanation why masks should not work, you are just somebody who's not accepting the current scientific consensus.

So where's your experiment showing the contrary? (With real humans and covid particles?) Where is your evidence?

So we have simulations, evidence that it controls community spread, etc. Every expert that I hear speak out says that masks work. Can you find any virologist working in a lab on COVID who claims masks don't work?

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33431650/

[kgarten]

Also they just tested one mask. In HK, Taiwan and Japan a lot of people are wearing 2 masks: 1 surgical mask and a cotton mask on top :)

Doesn't help at all (check Taiwan's and HK's numbers compared with Texas ... much higher population density).

[kgarten]

we have the controlled experiments, correlations in infections and annectodal evidence in individual incidence: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm

what experiment setup that has not been done would convince you? please descirbe it.