The infuriating rise of anti science behavior in every corner of society.

submitted by Bogos from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

This post really bothers me because of how anti-science, or at least ignorant of science, it comes across as. I'm not familiar with the evidence for and against vaccinations, so can't really comment on that. I did do some reading on masks at the beginning of the pandemic and there doesn't seem to be any real scientific support for people to wear masks other than well-fitted N95 masks in health care settings. The sex vs gender thing is the one with the most obvious evidence, but it wouldn't be science if people weren't allowed to ask questions and figure it out for themselves. Science, when it works right, stands up to scrutiny so doesn't need to be afraid of it, and even welcomes it to make sure findings stand up to scrutiny. There are plenty of scientific questions where the answers are not as cut-and-dried as the media/popular opinion (or the oversimplified stories they tell undergraduates for that matter) make them out to be.

We are letting group think regulate scientific and government policy.

Well, yes, this happens. Group think interferes with science by cherry-picking or pushing for answers prematurely. Science is a method for figuring things out, and policy is often unscientific because of people's emotions. I would argue this is true for both pushing gender identity and pushing masks. I would argue that the "consensus" on human-caused global warming is also oversimplified. I'm not sure that matters as much in the short term, but in the long term it might emphasize the wrong solutions.

I am often disappointed in how ideologically-driven radical feminism is. It is strongest when it is evidence-based, and I wish it were that way all the time, but no, out comes the dogma time and time again.

I think to be good at science you have to get comfortable with both not having answers and also finding answers you don't like. Living with ambiguity rather than needing certainty. Science can't give you certainty a lot of the time, but it may give you options you hadn't thought of for solving problems.

I assume I will get blocked for this opinion. Whatever. I'm grateful to those who respond objectively on this sort of thing.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

How is it anti science? It's common knowledge that putting a physical barrier over one's mouth and nose helps reduce the spread of respiratory diseases. It's the reason we are taught to cover our mouths when we cough or sneeze. That's what a mask does.

|I did do some reading on masks at the beginning of the pandemic and there doesn't seem to be any real scientific support for people to wear masks other than well-fitted N95 masks in health care settings.

They key here being "at the beginning of the pandemic". When this all started the CDC was advising against the use of surgical masks because 1. they do not protect the wearer and 2. there were concerns about healthcare professionals not having enough supplies. Both very valid points. Medical experts have since changed their stance on masks since this started as we've learned more about the virus and how it spreads. Use of cloth masks is now encouraged and even mandated in many states.

No, you won't find data suggesting that face masks protect the wearer unless it's an N-95. We can agree there. However it's not about whether they protect the wearer, it's about protecting others from the wearer's respiratory droplets. The data gathered suggests that novel coronavirus can be transmitted through people who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic. It is different from many other illnesses in that you do not need to show symptoms to be contagious. If everyone wears a mask when in public indoor spaces, including those who don't yet know they're infected or possibly may never know they're infected, it functions as a sort of herd immunity by reducing the rate of transmission.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I second this. The reason WHY people ask you to wear masks is to protect others not yourself. We are learning more and more about this disease so what was said in December may not be valid now as we learn more about it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know WHY, thanks. I did my reading in February, and was reading on masks, not Covid-19, where there has been considerably less new information.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

  • Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. If there is a problem with interpretation of findings in one area, discuss that in detail instead of throwing up your hands at people who disagree with you and saying they don't know how to science properly. Maybe some of them do, and you are the one who doesn't.
  • Using group-think to combat group-think. There is much more scientific consensus in some areas than in others, but even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road.

Specifically wrt masks, a century of research vs a few months of panic? I highly doubt that there has been so much peer-reviewed experimental research that has come out on mask-wearing in the last few months (that for some reason didn't show up in headlines or on r/coronavirus) that I need to update my reading already. For me it all comes across as emotional labour: wear masks to help keep others calm, because so many people are just not used to dealing with health risks and get freaked out about it. As a disabled person in chronic poverty who just does not have the spoons for all this, I am tired of always being asked to cater to others' emotional needs. If you're sick, stay home. Cover your coughs and sneezes. Give people room to breathe. Wear a mask if you want. But don't make me "perform" safety with homemade masks because you're anxious. TBH this reminds me a lot of the panic and over-reaction to 9/11 by people who were surprised something like that could happen.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are entirely correct that masks are just safety theater to make people feel safer and calmer and like they are "doing something."

I am also sick of being asked to make my chronically ill ass sicker so that other people feel like they have control over nature.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. " OP did not say they were exactly the same, but the science denial is shared between those three groups.

"Using group-think to combat group-think." Where did OP say we should combat the current TRA and anti-vaxx groupthink with more groupthink? By calling the president dangerously ignorant? By saying the anti mask movement is a problem?

"even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road." This is literally what happened when the CDC changed its stance on masks since the pandemic started, yet you're adamant you don't need to update your readings on how medical experts have changed their advice.

" I am tired of always being asked to cater to others' emotional needs" I'd understand if we were discussing emotional needs, but there is nothing "emotional" about harm reduction with regard to keeping vulnerable populations healthy and trying not to overburden the healthcare system.

" If you're sick, stay home. Cover your coughs and sneezes." Many who are infected do not know soon enough to self isolate and are not staying home.

"Give people room to breathe" https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

Article about how keeping your distance is not enough when air conditioning recirculates air in an enclosed space. Granted, this was in a restaurant, and people can't feasibly wear masks when eating, but the same concept applies to any enclosed space with a similar airflow.

" But don't make me "perform" safety with homemade masks because you're anxious." "Don't make me "perform" safety by driving the speed limit in a school zone because you're anxious." That's how this comes across. People are not simply "anxious". People are dying, and the ones that aren't are getting so sick they require resources hospitals may not have due to increased capacity and decreased availability of PPE. I don't know how to express to you that the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask could save lives and ensure hospital workers can give adequate care to all of their patients.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The people acting like real scientific criticisms of politically-motivated public policy are "anti-science" are the real scientific illiterates here.

And nah, it's actually disabled and chronically ill people with serious conditions who are being harmed by this security theater, the lack of access to medical care was bad enough but the mask hysteria is adding insult to injury. It is vulnerable people who are harmed by these political ploys, actually.

You can choose to drive or not. Driving is not a basic right in any society. When you drive you agree to conform to rules that, when conformed to, maintain your driving privileges. This is not the same as impinging on people's basic rights to exist in a free society.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, stopping the spray of saliva and mucus when you cough or sneeze (i.e., are having a symptom of illness) prevents the spread of symptomatic illness. Your elbow also is not porous.

This does not at all translate to "common knowledge" that masks reduce the spread of respiratory diseases. In fact there is basically no high quality evidence of any kind that masks reduce the spread of respiratory diseases, ESPECIALLY in asymptomatic people who likely cannot spread them at all. If there were any such evidence someone would have produced and acknowledged it already, but no one appears to be able to find any.

You are entirely wrong that any gathered data suggests sarscov2 is spread by asymptomatic people. No such data exists.

[–]Bogos[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

This post is not anti-science. In case you haven’t noticed thousands of people are dying due to scientific ignorance. All you have to do is look at countries and states where the virus is under control and where its not.

I would be happy to engage with you and discuss any study you would like.

Your understanding of COVID is anti-science and the reason we are in this position.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I disagree with almost everything you've said in your reply. As I said above in reply to someone else, I have problems with:

  • Lumping three different issues together as if they are all the same. If there is a problem with interpretation of findings in one area, discuss that in detail instead of throwing up your hands at people who disagree with you and saying they don't know how to science properly. Maybe some of them do, and you are the one who doesn't.
  • Using group-think to combat group-think. There is much more scientific consensus in some areas than in others, but even when there is consensus, scientists may change their minds down the road

Are you a scientist? I'm unemployed but have three science degrees and two publications in two fields, and have read published studies on these issues. I'm not really interested in engaging with people who make sweeping generalities (I've tried on other issues but find it too exhausting and frustrating) but do enjoy discussing details with fellow science nerds.

I do NOT want to get into the mask issue with you.

All I want is for people to not lump mask-deniers in with sex-deniers, thanks.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a currently working scientist and I agree w/ you and thank you for your thoughtful posts on this thread, this whole narrative as a scientist has just been exhausting. A bunch of people with no clue how the scientific method works screaming at people who are actually informing themselves that they're "anti-science" is just another thing I didn't feel like dealing with this year.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is scientific ignorance to think you can "control" a virus.

[–]Archie 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Those are good points to keep in mind in general, but FYI there's plenty of support that the virus is mostly transmitted by aerosols (droplets of water when you breath and speak), and they are stopped by any kind of mask.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Aerosols are not and cannot be stopped by masks.

Only droplets (which are not the same thing as aerosols) would be, and only by certain kinds of masks, and only for a short time before the mask has to be thrown out.

[–]Archie 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Stop talking with so much confidence about stuff you know nothing about.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7185834/

Overall, we find that combinations of various commonly available fabrics used in cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of aerosol particles.

Where "significant" = up to 95% of particles.

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

From the study you linked:

"It is important to note that in the realistic situation of masks worn on the face without elastomeric gasket fittings (such as the commonly available cloth and surgical masks), the presence of gaps between the mask and the facial contours will result in “leakage” reducing the effectiveness of the masks. "

The study goes on to say that there is a huge drop in efficacy if even 1% of the air leaks - but of course, much more than 1% of air leaks when a real mask is being worn. They also note "Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better “fit” and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. "

So essentially, this study is saying exactly what I just said.

CIDRAP, the CDC, the WHO, the Oxford center for Evidence Based Medicine and others have all failed to find any evidence whatsoever that cloth masks and even, most likely, surgical masks would reduce viral transmission during this pandemic, so IDK what you think you know more than all the scientists working at all those agencies but this article ain't it.

[–]Archie 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Literally nobody is saying that masks are perfect, your opposition doesn't make any sense. They don't have to be perfect. What matters is they very significantly lower the spread of the virus.

Your last paragraph is simply a big fat lie. The CDC has evidence that masks lower the spread of the virus, for a starter: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They do not very significantly lower the spread of sars-cov-2 or any other virus.

The CDC does not have any evidence, which is why the page you linked me contains exactly zero sources actually providing evidence for masks lowering viral spread. Nice try though. Maybe read things before you send them to other people as 'sources' first, next time.

Anyway there is no reason to try to lower the spread of a virus that is not even at epidemic levels anywhere in the anglosphere anymore and which is approximately as dangerous as the common flu. It's over already. Masking people in July after there is no longer an epidemic is peak security theatre but ironically universal masking is actually dangerous for a significant portion of the population who happen to be the people everyone keeps talking about "protecting."

[–]Archie 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In an editorial published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), CDC reviewed the latest science and affirms that cloth face coverings are a critical tool in the fight against COVID-19 that could reduce the spread of the disease, particularly when used universally within communities. There is increasing evidence that cloth face coverings help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.

[...]

This review included two case studies out today, one from JAMA, showing that adherence to universal masking policies reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission within a Boston hospital system, and one from CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), showing that wearing a mask prevented the spread of infection from two hair stylists to their customers in Missouri.

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So in an editorial they affirmed they "could" reduce the spread.

But what's the actual evidence that coverings help prevent people from spreading the virus? They don't link to any. CIDRAP and Oxford CEBM both are clear that there is no evidence.

The JAMA study is currently subject to calls for retraction by dozens of scientists as it's just a modelling study by a couple of computer scientists with no background in bio, physics, virology or epidemiology and its methods don't pass muster even to the untrained eye.

The fact that two hairstylists didn't give COVID to their customers is what we call an "anecdote" and not a study at all. Most people who are in contact with COVID-positive people don't get COVID, even when they live with those people.