> 77 studies, all published after 2019... 23/77 (29.9%) assessed mask effectiveness, with 11/77 (14.3%) being statistically significant, but 58/77 (75.3%) stated masks were effective. Of these, 41/58 (70.7%) used causal language. Only one mannequin study used causal language appropriately (1.3%). 72/77 (93.5%) pertained to SARS-CoV-2 alone. None cited randomized data. 1/77 (1.3%) cited conflicting evidence.
Bit hard to follow here since the talk about "studies that didn't actually study it" seems like a valid critique of study quality but not of mask effectiveness. (But where does the 1978 year in the title come from?)
Seems like of 23 studies, 11 of them found statistically significant evidence of improvement; only 1 saw conflicting evidence.
Sounds like room for further study and investigation but possibly suggestive of differences in mask quality, correct usage, etc, so deeper dives would certainly be interesting.
Obviously in some situations and disciplines nobody questions the value of quality masks, so the "it can't possibly be effective" crowd seems even more unjustified than the "it's effective [even if just 11 out of 23 of the studies said so]" crowd.
Bit hard to follow here since the talk about "studies that didn't actually study it" seems like a valid critique of study quality but not of mask effectiveness. (But where does the 1978 year in the title come from?)
Seems like of 23 studies, 11 of them found statistically significant evidence of improvement; only 1 saw conflicting evidence.
Sounds like room for further study and investigation but possibly suggestive of differences in mask quality, correct usage, etc, so deeper dives would certainly be interesting.
Obviously in some situations and disciplines nobody questions the value of quality masks, so the "it can't possibly be effective" crowd seems even more unjustified than the "it's effective [even if just 11 out of 23 of the studies said so]" crowd.