Frequently asked questions
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sustainabilitypurpose (
article contribs).
Perhaps not: [1]. Any thoughts? Should this be included in the article? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Much has been made of a CDC-published literature review (out of U. of Hong Kong) in 2020 showing a lack of transmission-reduction efficacy by face masks in actual practice rather than based on assumptive projections from their ability to suppress droplet spray. This was particularly about influenza, but what holds for one coronavirus is almost certainly going to hold for the rest of them. (While both Jefferson, Dooley, Ferroni, et al. (2023) and Cash-Goldwasser, Reingold, Luby, at al. (2023) have suggested that results could theoretically differ on a coronavirus-by-coronavirus basis, there is no actual evidence this is true to date, and considerable evidence against the idea.) The review is based on 14 randomized controlled trials, i.e. precisely the sort of data that our lead and our "Efficacy" section incorrectly claim is missing.
Our present article's pretense that this and some similar, later material simply doesn't exist is not doing any favors for WP's credibility, and is against WP:DUE policy. If such reviews turn out to be flawed, there will be newer reviews that say so and why (and specifically address this and any other obsolete reviews by name). Both sides on the matter (or all sides, if there are more than two with in-depth representation in high-quality, peer-reviewed material) need to be covered properly in the article. This CDC review is all over the place in far-right and anti-mask media, so its total absence from WP coverage of the subject looks like intentional suppression and simply adds fuel to the "WP is a leftist propaganda farm" fire. 2001:5A8:4260:3100:C444:87AF:E299:2F41 ( talk) 01:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Frequently asked questions
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sustainabilitypurpose (
article contribs).
Perhaps not: [1]. Any thoughts? Should this be included in the article? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Much has been made of a CDC-published literature review (out of U. of Hong Kong) in 2020 showing a lack of transmission-reduction efficacy by face masks in actual practice rather than based on assumptive projections from their ability to suppress droplet spray. This was particularly about influenza, but what holds for one coronavirus is almost certainly going to hold for the rest of them. (While both Jefferson, Dooley, Ferroni, et al. (2023) and Cash-Goldwasser, Reingold, Luby, at al. (2023) have suggested that results could theoretically differ on a coronavirus-by-coronavirus basis, there is no actual evidence this is true to date, and considerable evidence against the idea.) The review is based on 14 randomized controlled trials, i.e. precisely the sort of data that our lead and our "Efficacy" section incorrectly claim is missing.
Our present article's pretense that this and some similar, later material simply doesn't exist is not doing any favors for WP's credibility, and is against WP:DUE policy. If such reviews turn out to be flawed, there will be newer reviews that say so and why (and specifically address this and any other obsolete reviews by name). Both sides on the matter (or all sides, if there are more than two with in-depth representation in high-quality, peer-reviewed material) need to be covered properly in the article. This CDC review is all over the place in far-right and anti-mask media, so its total absence from WP coverage of the subject looks like intentional suppression and simply adds fuel to the "WP is a leftist propaganda farm" fire. 2001:5A8:4260:3100:C444:87AF:E299:2F41 ( talk) 01:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)