What I have been seeing lately are story after story reported substantially differently in different news outlets depending on the outlet’s ideology. I’ll give a couple of examples.
One took place in Texas. A guy was shooting at targets in his backyard, neighbors complained, guy went over to the neighbor’s house and shot five of the neighbors dead. I’ve seen this story told at least five different ways, depending:
- Private ownership of assault weapons should be illegal.
- Isn’t Texas horrible?
- We have too many immigrants.
- Illegal ownership of guns results in a lot of violent crime.
- People are too afraid.
I think there’s a kernel of truth in each of those renditions except the last. In this particular instance it seems to me the opposite was the case—I see no signs of fear on the part of any of the parties. I would add one account I haven’t heard but would suggest is more relevant to this and other tragedies than fear: sense of entitlement. “The mofo dissed me and I offed him.”
A key problem is that facts in the story were reported selectively depending on ideology. If you only accept reports from your own favored sources as evidence, in all likelihood you’ll only get part of the story.
Here’s another one. The use of facemasks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The versions are:
- Masks are useless.
- Masks should be mandatory.
- Masks are helpful in reducing the risk of spreading COVID-19 but the marginal benefit is low.
- Masks are helpful in reducing the risk of spreading COVID-19 and the marginal benefit is high.
There are probably some more versions and we’ll probably be hearing this debate for the next 20 years. I’ve read studies reporting from 10% effectiveness in reduction to 40%. I don’t believe I’ve read any studies which found a total end to spread due to wearing facemasks, at least not ordinary masks, N95s, or KN95s.
On COVID, its important to note when the article was written and the date of the data it is referencing.
The reason is there is good data that the virus has gotten more contagious over time; especially after the Omicron variant emerged.
The effectiveness of masks can only be evaluated through that context.
Another one is Iowa making some changes to its child labor laws. Coverage included a piece by John Oliver (I didn’t watch it), but which was very popular. Many of the reports on what these changes actually do are completely at odds. Some outlets (including, apparently, Oliver’s video) are painting it as going back to when there were no child labor laws, other outlets are saying these are tweaks mostly aimed at education and training opportunities. I haven’t taken the time to read the actual legislation to determine who is correct, and since I don’t live in Iowa and my time is better spent on other things.
But I find this sort of pseudo-factual disparity is increasingly common. I generally do not trust media reporting anymore, especially reporting with a partisan angle (look at what Republicans/Democrats are doing and why it’s terrible), unless I check the facts myself. Which is exceedingly tiring. But it’s necessary because what gets reported is often extremely misleading, even on mundane stuff. And then the confirmation-bias supporting interpretation/narrative becomes the “truth.”
We are increasingly living in a world where people actually do have their own “facts” that confirm their priors which they get secondhand from sources incentivized to confirm those priors.
There are many complicating factors. For example, I’m skeptical of using East Asian countries as models for all sorts of reasons, one being that early on their people may have had some resistance to the disease due to prior exposure to similar conditions.
Andy, I’ve refrained from posting about the kerfuffle over child labor laws. As I see it the VERY SAME arguments that are being made to consider job seekers as asylum seekers can be made to justify relaxing child labor laws, e.g. “these are desperate people just trying to earn a living to support themselves and their families”.
But yes that’s another topic on which where you stand depends on where you sit.
I still remember an early study on masking that looked at a cohort of prison guards. They were masked constantly will full PPE but still got infected because they had long shifts in an enclosed area with an infected population. An underappreciated factor when it comes to masking is time – masks can delay and reduce the chance of infection but not prevent it. As I think PD Shaw said originally, they are not force fields, and they should not be treated as such.
You can also look at China, which had not only draconian masking mandates but also forced people to stay inside their homes. That failed too.
Not only that. IMO it is inevitable that people wearing masks will take risks that people who don’t wear them might not. Unless they ARE “force fields” in an ordinary population that might reduce the effectiveness of wearing masks.
Yeah, many people started going out and doing stuff because those homemade cloth masks made it “safe” to do so.
Again, the most important studies are the lab studies which show that the masks do work ie they reduce risk. Not completely but they do reduce risk. Almost everything else is compliance. Its not only the compliance of the individual but also that of the household where they live. If you wear your mask when you should and wear it properly but your spouse or kids do not they they dont help much.
How well they work is a function of proper use and how infectious is the virus. Masks were a good idea early when the virus was less communicable but the new variants are so easy transmitted that the period of protection is so minimal you should probably wear an N-95 or not bother.
I dont think we had a single confirmed case of reported transmission from a pt to staff wearing an N 95. Of staff who had covid all had home exposure or weren’t wearing a mask outside of work. There was a small percentage where it was hard to be sure but given that they were all at risk and covid rates were low early it strongly suggests masks working.
There were tons of warnings about avoiding large groups, risk being higher indoors, distancing etc so it was pretty clear that more than masks were needed. You cant stop risk taking unless you go the China route.
Count me ambivalent on the child labor thing. I needed to work early, started before 14, or there were times when we would not have eaten. Still happened occasionally when money had to help with rent. If some kid really needs to work or else the family, and the kid, suffer significantly (not just missing out on Nintendo) I would hate to see that not be there for them. OTOH I do have concerns about night shifts and some factory work and there really are abusive families. I did farm stuff when I was young but at least there was usually family around. OTOH again, we let young kids hang around Catholic priests.
Steve
“Almost everything else is compliance. Its not only the compliance of the individual but also that of the household where they live. If you wear your mask when you should and wear it properly but your spouse or kids do not they they dont help much.”
LOL I know your thoughts are in earnest, but really?
This reminds me of working on the trailing axle made from hot rolled band at the mill. Some research guy had used a lab furnace to dissolve and then precipitation harden plain carbon steel with vanadium carbonitride. 6″ x 6″ piece. Not moving. Ultra controlled heating, cooling, everything.
Now here we are in a real production environment: a hot strip mill with a slab exiting the furnace and going through progressive reduction stands, picking up speed until its coming down the line like a bat out of hell. All to be cooled by production quality water sprays and then coiled to cool. 20 tons of steel in a coil.
And the idiot couldn’t understand why it took so long to duplicate a lab environment in the real live world.
Almost reminds me of the Monty Python “How to Do It” skit.
Soooooo, how does a mask with openings 25,000 nanometers wide, stop a virus that is 100 nanometers in diameter. And, regarding the explanation that the virus is actually riding on big droplets so small you can’t see them, and that droplets that small evaporates pretty quickly, leaving the virus in the mask to accumulate,…..how do masks stop the virus? Of course I could be misreading the scale on the images. Pics from CDC are at these sites: https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/images.html https://www.nist.gov/feature-stories/masks-under-microscope
Drew- I noted that we have taken that lab info and applied it to areas that have enforced compliance and (usually) training ie hospitals. In hospitals masks work. So we have lab studies showing that the materials used in mask work to filter viruses and we have real live clinical experience showing that when turned into masks they work.
There are many reasons why masks capture viruses smaller than their pore size well studied by aerosol scientists. You rarely if ever see a single virus particle alone. Its usually attached to other viruses, mucus, other proteins or water. Next, masks are not 2 dimensional. They have thickness, thicker than the size of the pores so the virus is going down a long tunnel. Masks that have more than one layer means the virus goes down multiple tunnels. That tunnel is not smooth sided like a wall of glass. There are loose fibers sticking into the tunnel. Very small particles dont move in straight lines. Brownian motion (see link) means that small particles move erratically. In the case of N 95 masks they also use electrostatic charge to catch particles.
N 95 masks are actually best at catching particles larger or smaller than their 0.3 micron size. They are actually worst at a particle size of 0.3 microns. N 95 means the mask will stop 95% of particles at the size of 0.3 microns. It will be better much better with smaller sizes.
To be clear, this has been tested empirically so this is not just some model. It has been tested multiple ways to look at quantity and size of particles masks stop and tested by using mask material to regulate airflow between populations of infected and non-infected animals.
https://chemistrytalk.org/brownian-motion/
Steve
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/mask-study-imploding-cochrane-collaboration-in-latest-debacle_5172668.html
The review was updated in 2011, 2020, and again in 2023.4 The latest update added 11 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs, six of which were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, for a total number of 78 RCTs reviewed. In terms of medical and surgical masks, the team found “moderate-certainty evidence†that they’re useless compared to no masks:5
“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenzaâ€like illness (ILI)/COVIDâ€19-like illness compared to not wearing masks … Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratoryâ€confirmed influenza/SARSâ€CoVâ€2 compared to not wearing masks.â€
The Cochrane review notes that essentially all of the studies have compliance issues and that there was a lot of uncertainty. It is unable to conclude whether masks help or dont help based upon population studies. However, as I noted above we have good studies in labs and in clinical care that show if masks are used and used properly they do reduce risk.
So as an individual you can know that should you decide to wear a mask and are in a situation where you either live alone or can be sure others in your home will also comply, masks will reduce risk. With the newer variants you need to upgrade to an N95 to work. What we have shown to date is that we dont know how to convince people to use masks when they should.
Steve
Abe: And, regarding the explanation that the virus is actually riding on big droplets so small you can’t see them, and that droplets that small evaporates pretty quickly, leaving the virus in the mask to accumulate,….
There are two modes, droplets and aerosols. Masks and distancing are very effective at stopping droplets, such as from someone coughing. Masks are less effective at stopping aerosols. They don’t offer much protection when virus levels are very low, such as outdoors. They don’t offer much protection when virus levels are very high, such as on a COVID hospital ward or a crowded bar. But they work well when virus levels are moderate, such as groceries and other well-ventilated areas. See Cheng et al., Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, Science 2021.
jan,
From the actual study: “Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. . . The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.” See Jefferson et al., Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2023.
Dave Schuler: The use of facemasks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
More generally, it has to do with R0. If R0 > 1, then the contagion will spread exponentially. If R0 < 1, then it will die out. If masks and distancing can reduce R0 to near 1, then it can slow the spread. If masks and distancing can reduce R0 to less than 1, then the contagion will die out.
Typically, people are reactive. That means they will start to wear masks and distance once the contagion has already started to spread. At that point, it takes a much more concerted effort to bring the contagion under control. It would be more effective if people were proactive when even small actions can have large results. (But people are what they are.)
For the most part a majority of media outlets report information and news the government-approved messengers obligate them to release. The idea of a “free press†has become almost mythical. For instance, pharmaceuticals provide substantial revenues to broadcast entities, through the marketing of their disease management and vaccine products on their networks. Tucker Carlson touched on the influence these corporations have on news content, which some say led to his demise and program being taken off the air.
Consequently, whether it involves guns, vaccines, border invasions, the main stream media is closely tied to a state- controlled type of format. Their version, though, is what most people are subjected to, while on the sidelines there is a growing subset of news involving a freer commentary – one more aligned to thorough investigations of events and people, and less apt to be seduced by a profit motive, political bias or political correctness. So, that’s why different stories arise in different news outlets causing more and more people to question the veracity of what is being dished out to the public these days.