In a recent post, I suggested visitors read a referenced study related to mask wearing (particularly cloth masks) during the COVID-19 pandemic. While most everyone who commented supported the overall wearing of masks, several immediately spoke out against the source of the study since it originated within a group known for extreme conservative views.
Such instant and biased reactions made me wonder … how many even took the time to read the study? Did their prejudices against its origin prevent them from even opening the document?
And my questions aren’t limited to the blog post. How often are articles and news reports rejected simply because the content writer supports an opposite view from our own?
When it comes to politics, I admit I lean Progressive. However, I don’t outwardly reject everything that has the “Conservative” tag attached to it. Over time, I have found there are some (albeit few 🙂) principles within their dogmas that do have merit. I simply try to use good common sense and wisdom to separate the good from the bad. The important point here is … I’m willing to study and discuss.
It is no different from participating in religious discussions. Some will immediately reject any claims made by a non-believer, basing their objections on preformed beliefs and ideas. (Of course, the opposite is true as well.) Yet if one approaches the conversation with at least somewhat of an open mind, oftentimes a fruitful give-and-take dialogue can result. This doesn’t necessary mean that either party will change their core views, but it can allow for new insights and learning.
For many of us, the years when we marched and waved banners and protested against social and political issues are long past. Now we use our nimble (?) fingers on computers and tablets and phones to share our viewpoints. And by doing so, although we open the door to those who may disagree, the difference is we can share our opinions and knowledge and, if we keep our minds open, we can learn from each other as well.
*************************************
Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay
Nan's Notebook 
I did look at the study. But it is difficult to know what to make of it.
As for the source: The Hoover Institution is a think tank, and some good ideas come from there. The American Enterprise Institute is a think tank with a conservative emphasis. But they still do come up with good idea. I cannot recall ever seeing anything good come from The Cato Institute, so I sometimes describe them as a “we don’t think” tank.
LikeLiked by 4 people
At least you looked at the study. This is my point. In too many instances, as soon as a person discovers the source is one they disagree with, they immediately reject anything coming from it.
In this case, it was the Cato Institute, but as I pointed out in my post, the same thing happens in religious discussions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t look at the study, but I did look at the source.Getting your information from reliable sources is important. As a non-expert I simply don’t have the qualifications to know how good the study is (this is part of what the peer review process is supposed to be for.) Part of this is the job of good science communicators (which I am obviously not.)
If the information in the study is good it will generally tend to flow towards the mainstream were it will be further reported on by sources that trust.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t look at the study, but I did look at the source.
So this means the study itself is automatically incorrect … bad … slanted … biased … etc?
LikeLike
No, it doesn’t mean it’s incorrect (that would be a genetic fallacy), but I’m not in a position either way to evaluate this study. Leave that to the experts to figure out.
So far the advice from experts has been to wear a mask, and lately they’re talking about ditching cloth masks in favor of N95 rated masks that form a seal around the face.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re correct. The experts are the ones who would argue or agree from a technical standpoint. However, I was simply asking readers to look it over and offer their (layman’s) opinions. Whenever I post a link to an article, that’s really all I’m asking for … simple feedback. If someone has the education/training to offer more, certainly that’s welcome as well.
I do agree with your last paragraph. Overall, the very best protection —especially for the unvaccinated (if they will even wear a mask!)– is the N95.
LikeLike
Our political system itself seems to be encouraging this kind of approach. We boast of the values of democracy and free speech but we are strangely reticent to take full advantage of it. Each political party insist that the other is inherently wrong about everything and encourage unthinking support – no more well considered than the support applied to football clubs.
We would do well to ignore what confirms our own bias and try to digest what doesn’t.
Easier said than done, of course.
The problem with ‘reliable sources’ is that they are becoming increasingly difficult to identify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” Each political party insist that the other is inherently wrong about everything and encourage unthinking support…”
There may be some truth to this, as both of the two major parties are very close to each other on the political landscape, with little to differentiate them, but one side is clearly working much harder to convince its supporters that the follow without thinking. The culture wars, and turning everything into a political issue just so they can “own the Libs”, is predominately coming from one side.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Do you think it likely that supporters of the other party might see it otherwise?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, but it doesn’t make them correct.
LikeLike
Isn’t that the point?
LikeLike
I thought the point was for side to play on the imaginary fears of their followers. The most conservatives seem very good at worrying that progressives (or whoever the latest scapegoat is) are coming to eat their babies, or whatever the concern of the week is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I started to read the study, and I had no idea who the Cato Institute was, or what viewpoint I should be expecting. But it quickly became clear this was a conservayive/Republican/anti-anything-Covid article. I stopped reading half way through. Reading the comments after confirmed my instinctual reaction. There are enough people where I live who will jump on something like that and use it to argue why they won’t wear masks, or get vaccinated.
The Internet is such that you can always find stuff from whatever side you want to be on, but that does not mean you are getting trustworthy info. I trust myself to read between the lines, and why waste my time reading bullshit!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t read the study … as I missed your last post.
I just read it.
The comments are usually more enlightening.
By the way, if there is a study that green M & Ms make one horny please do a post.
😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ark, it’s the RED M & Ms that make one horny! You need to read more studies by self-proclaimed Nobel Prize winners in science, like myself, so you’re better informed on such matters. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wait, what??? Damn, I need to read the comments more carefully. Where can one get these green M&Ms?
Not for me, for a friend, of course.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pee Ess. Is the Cato Institute somewhat like the character in Peter Sellers Pink Panther movies?
Leaps out at you when you least expect it and Karate chops you senseless with ‘info’?
LikeLike
I did read both pieces but frankly I shouldn’t have bothered. I should have known better with the Cato item and if I’d known who was really behind the Dispatch at the time I wouldn’t have wasted my time on that one
yes, sometimes the source presenting a of a piece of information is so tainted that there is no point in even bothering to look at it. When you know from past experiences that an information source almost always presents information that only supports their point of view and often just plain lies and makes things up, and deliberately tries to mislead readers, looking at any material published by that source is a waste of time.
Here is an extreme example, but perhaps apt in this situation. Would you trust the KKK to present any kind of accurate information about racial justice, or would you reject anything that organization said out of hand? Does that make me biased? If so, so be it.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I for one still have enough energy to march for good and against the bad social ideas. Maybe that is one of the reasons why I do not have enough time to read every article anyone links, even though I do read and enjoy this blog. I do not have the expertice to evaluate a study as such on medical issues.
However, as a Finn, I do hold at high esteem the officials and medical professionals of my country, who uniformly support the use of the masks and who have painstakingly explained in simple enough terms, that even I think I could understand why those are necessary (even though not everybody even here have been listening). When the officials and actual experts refer to new studies and tell me the mask wearing has become obsolete, I will give up on wearing one. I do not trust them absolutely, as they are human too and may make mistakes, have their personal biases and may be corruptable, but the bulk of them are not as likely to make any such major mistakes and at the moment they are backed up by almost every peer around the globe.
A new academic study from any source is not often even very interresting or worth the bother, before it has reached some level of credibility. Not even on much more interresting subjects, than virology. Think tanks produce loads of garbage on the guise of academic studies and those have their own curiosity value as what sort of propaganda different political forces want to push. It is – after all – interresting to learn about such studies, that are released and to read first impressions from people who know about the sources and/or have actually read them.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hello Nan,
Excellent post!
I agree with a majority of your points. Open-mindedness is an indispensable precondition for the proper evaluation of novel data.
This is because we almost always face the fisherman’s temptation :
Two men went fishing. One was an experienced fisherman, the other wasn’t. Every time the experienced fisherman caught a big fish, he put it in his ice chest to keep it fresh. Whenever the inexperienced fisherman caught a big fish, he threw it back. The experienced fisherman watched this go on all day and finally got tired of seeing the man waste good fish. “Why do you keep throwing back all the big fish you catch?” he asked. The inexperienced fisherman replied, “I only have a small frying pan.”
Cited from :
(https://www.citehr.com/598609-i-only-have-small-frying-pan-leadership.html)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Dylan! And thanks for stopping by. Haven’t seen you much on Scottie’s blog … ?? Anyway, I do appreciate your input and support. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course!
LikeLike
Nan–
I found this post disconcerting for the reasons several of the people above cited. However, I tried three times to respond yesterday, and my comments went into the ether. So I’ll see if this brief comment goes through. If it does, I’ll return and provide my thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A thoughtful and thought-provoking contribution, Nan.
Thank you.
I know this is long, but bear with me, please.
I’m often considered elderly, possibly because of my advanced age, and I generally decline when asked to do that amount of homework.
5 pages of technical talk in fine print? Really?
This leaves me breathless:
“…found higher point estimates of clinical respiratory
infection among mask wearers (12% [97 ÷ 828]) than unmasked
participants (9% [141 ÷ 1,497]), although the difference was not
statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p = 0.06).”
Be still, my foolish heart!
I confess I skipped down to the conclusion.
Nan, when it comes to my well being and that of family, friends, fellow worshipers, and those I may meet in checkout lines, I do need to have some modicum of confidence in the source. So I tend to flip past celebrity assurances that someone has a cousin who has a friend who has a boyfriend who the celebrity hears developed an amazing genital growth after getting a vaccination. Especially when that vaccine may save my life and the lives of others.
In a way, I suppose I go to the non-theological equivalent of Pascal’s Wager (https://brucegerencser.net/2021/12/bruce-what-if-you-are-wrong/#comment-124995). If I am masked and wrong about its effectiveness, it costs me nothing. But if I am unmasked and turn out to be wrong… well, you know.
So, even after jumping past several pages, this ending would not help me much, I’m afraid:
“Scientists
and public health officials should exercise caution to ensure that
this potential bias does not lead to a cessation of research as the
first studies demonstrating mask efficacy are reported.”
When scientists are under some pressure, knowing that lives are at stake, they may issue warnings ahead of definitive subsequent triple blind studies.
The article strikes me as the moral equivalent of criticizing someone yelling to passengers to run for the lifeboats because that person did not first find a stopwatch and yardstick, then take the time to measure accurately the rate of rising water below deck.
I confess I would look at the source before tossing away my mask.
LikeLiked by 5 people
It’s important to point out that the study referenced in a previous post was primarily related to the wearing of CLOTH masks — which nearly everyone seemed to overlook and instead made snap judgments based on the source of the study.
From the referenced article: Under direction from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine considered the benefits of homemade fabric masks in the COVID-19 context, concluding that the “level of benefit, if any, is not possible to assess.”
Interestingly, a report related to mask wearing was also published by the government and can be found here. It included the following:
…
The article goes on to discuss the various type of cloth masks and their viability against the virus.
While nearly all reliable sources related to mask wearing agree that N-95 masks offer the most protection, the purpose of my original post was to demonstrate there is scattered opinions related to cloth masks.
LikeLike
There’s a good body of research that suggests that well fitting cloth masks have some effect on transmission, although it’s likely smaller than you think. It’s always possible for one study to find just about anything, but as more studies that get pumped out we get a clearer picture as outliers start to show themselves for what they are.
538 has a pretty good information about masks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with your statement that one can find a “study” to support pretty much whatever they want to believe. It’s just unfortunate (especially as related to this virus) that so many ignore –or reject– studies that have been clearly demonstrated as being valid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alas, my detailed comment with links did not go through. I’ll simply say that in matters as critical as mask-wearing–even more urgent with Omicron running rampant–I think it’s important to consider the source of any article outside the mainstream. Too often there’s cherry-picking of data and lopsided “findings.”
Though I enjoy researching and reading esoteric articles, many people have neither the time nor inclination to do so. There are reasons for broad consensus statements. Current thinking is that cloth masks are better than nothing; surgical masks are substantially better than cloth; N95s are the safest of all (though poorly manufactured and phony N95s are flooding the market, so the seller is important).
With regard to the articles under discussion, I found:
–The emphasis was solely on cloth masks.
–The large-scale study referred to was actually a Stanford U. study touting the efficacy of surgical masks that included how to wear them–an important element (!). The Cato authors misrepresented the study.
–FactCheck.org has a discussion of the fact that the Danish study didn’t reach the findings presented.
–The Cochrane Review, done in 2020 re: flu-like viruses, DID NOT include COVID-19 studies. I found a disclaimer that the findings had been misrepresented and could not be applied until COVID studies had been incorporated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
FYI — your previous comments went to Spam due to the number of links. Sorry ’bout that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry, Nan–
I was rewriting my post while you were posting the above. I’m glad you clarified that you were discussing cloth masks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Annie.
Let me be clear — I’m most definitely in strong alliance with those who promote mask-wearing. Even cloth masks. 🙂
It’s just unfortunate that the topic of the virus and pretty much all things related to have been over-politicized and thus bring out strong personal and emotional reactions.
In any event, I do appreciate the input you provided related to the article. And your follow-up comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hell with studies. My cat Radar sneezes all the time, he’s got allergies. When he sneezes, being a cat, he never covers his mouth & the sneeze sprays all over the place & snot flies out of his nose. I’m always having to clean up after him, especially when he’s hanging around my desk.
My point is: all this business about what of mask is the best … ANY MASK IS GOING TO WORK. If you’re sneezing or coughing, all that spray from your mouth & nose stays in your mask. If your mask isn’t a throw-away, be sure to wash it often … think of it as underwear your wear on your face & have as many masks as you do pairs of underwear.
This isn’t particularly hard to figure out. This isn’t political or even scientific. It’s just COMMON F*NG SENSE. Which is probably why it’s controversial.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A cat with allergies! Never heard of such a thing. But then, I’ve only owned a couple of cats in my lifetime so what do I know?
In any event, your illustration was apropos. 😁
LikeLiked by 1 person
I second this. The article did not mention multi-layered cloth masks, or especially the multi-layered ones that have a pocket for a filter, if one is wearing a mask specifically for self-protection, That’s why I reserved comment at all. But I love SAQ’s comment, so I’m chiming in now.
The thing about the rightwing is, they put out a lot of facts that are truly facts, but also that obfuscate the idea that people could think of others while thinking of themselves. Instead, they spout these facts while going about life as if there are no colds, flus, allergies, or COVID-19.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The real evil here? It’s the sinister labels that people use. Are there only two kinds of people in the world? Of course not!
When we label people, whether based on political or religious ideology or personality types, we dehumanize them. But if we take the time to get to know the person, we’ll discover many different shades of gray rather than the black and white world of labeling. We would do well to ditch the labels and have more meaningful conversations with people. But going deeper isn’t the design of social media.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good points, Tim Bishop! Unfortunately, using labels seems to be the only way for some people to “separate” themselves from “the others.”
LikeLike
I confess to taking sides. I think of myself as a left leaning moderate. I find most studies a tedious read even when I agree for some reason. A good synopsis helps, but interpretation from a trusted source can be most useful.
I have about 16 hours each day to invest in what I want to read, write, discuss, or listen to, draw, relax, or nap. FOX news is not one I am willing to bother with. Sue me. My neighbor does little else. Sue him too.
It’s my time. For me to use it as I wish by filtering out the upsetting or unpleasant (to me) should be my call. For someone to judge me because I do makes it sound like they think I should be more like them.
I have made up my mind about many things (the earth is not flat, the Holocaust happened, science is useful, vax’s help, I wear good masks, etc.). How I chose to spend my limited time should be at least tolerated. If my mind is “closed,” so what?
I read and try to respond to most of your posts. That should count for something. I refuse to feel guilty for being decisive about some things. Yes, I have always considered “the source.” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Taking sides” is VERY common among pretty much all humans. I think it’s just part of our nature. What sometimes disturbs me is when someone takes a “side” and refuses to consider the “other side” for no other reasons than … just because.
None of us (so far) have a gun pointed at our head so we’re pretty much able to live our lives the way we want. I just happen to be a person who thinks there are advantages to looking at all sides of an issue. It does NOT mean I have to agree when all is said and done, but at least I’ve given the “opposite side” a chance to present their case.
In any event, thank you for your thoughts. I tend to agree with most of them. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
I’m one you speak of…I didn’t look at the study because of Cato’s reputation. But you are correct in that we should at least look, if it feels like a reliable source and not some QAnon BS or Fox News propaganda.
For medical, I try to look at the big hospitals, universities or study programs when I have the time or desire. Mostly I try to use common sense and gut feeling.
The mask may not be ideal, but every little bit helps is what I think.
Hopefully all this will ease up some when the two drugs come out that are for treating Covid early after you get it and perhaps a flow of updated boosters for every new variant that comes out. I think we will just have to learn to live with it and try our very best to be safe. And with saying that, I also don’t want to give up living at my age. I need to still enjoy life to be happy and if that means occasionally taking a chance, I’ll probably do it and hope for the best. Probably foolish, but Ive only got so many years left..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree … common sense and gut feelings are two excellent qualities for sifting out the “bad” from the “good.” Thing is — if we never look at the “bad,” then how do we decide what is “good?” 😎
I also agree that “taking a chance” now and again can be beneficial, but as you said, we have to use common sense and wisdom before we “jump in.”
I always appreciate you input, Mary. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Merry Christmas, Nan and to all you wonderful people who follow Nan’s excellent blog.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m not going to learn anything from the multitude of anti-American, Cockbros-funded propaganda mills like Cato and AEI other than how to undermine democracy with lies through unlimited amounts of money
LikeLike