An opinion piece masking as scientific proof
Can anyone find the actual science in this CBS article?
Nothing’s more frustrating that mainstream outlets that act as if they are reporting on science without providing the actual science.
My biggest gripe with mainstream outlets is that most of these journalists lack any of the background knowledge to raise pertinent questions. They also are inclined to analogize and simplify all manners of science to make it approachable to viewers, which generally means that there is hardly any science left to actual educate oneself with.
I find it frustrating how often the gatekeepers of The Science tend to be the same people who don’t know anything about science.
Suffice to say, I’m not surprised to see such articles as this one from CBS News:
Another attempt at encouraging masking again, I see. Anyways, we’re all here for the real reason why this article was released- what does the science say about mask effectiveness?
Well, if you actually asked that question I hope you weren’t holding your breath. What would appear as an article providing scientific evidence essentially amounts to an opinion piece- but an opinion piece from a scientist, no less! So that means it’s not really an opinion piece, right?
The article is based on a 60 Minute interview with Linsey Marr, a researcher at Virginia Tech who focuses on aerosol science. Marr has been a coauthor for a few papers regarding masking, and so I suppose this makes her an authority figure on mask effectiveness. You know how I love my authority figures!
And yet even as Marr is considered an “expert” on the subject matter, there again seems to be a lack of something in both this opinion piece as well as the relevant video…
Of course, I’m making a rhetorical point because this opinion piece/video is again another hallmark of mainstream media’s reliance on so-called experts to tell us what to think of the topic of masking rather than providing us information as to how or why masking is actually effective.
This is made even worse given the fact that percentages are thrown around in the video, which may make lay viewers assume that the numbers are based on scientific evidence rather than random numbers used to make the point clearer. Again, the unfortunate consequence is that the evidence is based on analogizing mask effectiveness rather than evaluating actual masking studies.
And the opinion piece is not better, although I would argue that it’s likely a write-up based on the section from 60 Minutes.
You do get nuggets such as the excerpt below:
"They are very helpful in reducing the chances that the person will get COVID because it's reducing the amount of virus that you would inhale from the air around you," Marr said about masks.
No mask is 100% effective. An N95, for example, is named as such because it is at least 95% efficient at blocking airborne particles when used properly. But even if a mask has an 80% efficiency, Marr said, it still offers meaningful protection.
Remember that the question of mask effectiveness would require evidence that these masks are blocking the viruses we inhale from the air, and not based on comments that this is actually occurring. This is the same with the “95% blocking airborne particles” comment, because it doesn’t tell us what particles in particular are being blocked, and whether SARS-COV2 would fit into the category of those particles that are being blocked.
I think there’s plenty of evidence detailing some of the criticisms surrounding masking, so it’s not my prerogative to hash it out even further here. Rather, as consumers we should do our due diligence in making sure that the information we are being provided is based on actual science and not just comments or opinions made by so-called experts or authority figures. Even if one believes that masking works, you still are owed the actual evidence and robust analysis detailing why masking works, rather than this ridiculous analogy of running through a forest, because how comparable is that analogy to the actual actions that occur through respiration and mask filtration?
We should be asking for better reporting. We should be asking for actual science. We shouldn’t be insulted by how little these people in charge actually view of us. But of course, maybe all of this is another reason why it’s so important that we do our own research.
If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.
When we pronounce CBS, the sounds tell us about the bulk of what we see from the old media.
Airborne simulation experiments conducted under controled lab conditions showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective
SARS-CoV-2 aerosols. To my knowledge, these experiments were conducted as early as June 2020 in Tokyo, but probably other labs did it too. However, masks could not *completely* block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed.
Nevertheless, like almost everything in a pandemic, we are talking probabilities here. If you wear a mask properly, the probability of transmission decreases - makes sense, and has been lab confirmed. That translates into millions of transmission opportunities missed. At a point, the goal was not to stop virus transmission anymore, but rather delay it enough to avoid flooding medical units.