5 ms·

I've read repeatedly (and heard on the radio several times) that wearing a mask if YOU are infected will help protect other people, but if you are not infected

I've read repeatedly (and heard on the radio several times) that wearing a mask if YOU are infected will help protect other people, but if you are not infected then it has no known protective effect ie. is not thought to be any more protective than not wearing one. Do you have any evidence to back up you talk of masks? (And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway) Edit: I was thinking of non-medical situations. @j7ake below, clearly pointed out they work in medical situations, something I was not contesting at all but did not make clear. The original post talked of "wearing masks in public" which was clearly not in medical situations and I was following through that.

cyphar 7y ago
This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks. The evidence very much shows that wearing masks can reduce community transmission rates of SARS-like viruses -- up to 70% even with just plain surgical masks[2]. And even if you don't buy that, everyone wearing a mask means that asymptomatic carriers (who have no idea they're sick) cannot spread it as effectively. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-... [2]: https://medium.com/@adrien.burch/whats-the-evidence-on-face-masks-5f3c27a18cc https://medium.com/@adrien.burch/whats-the-evidence-on-face-...
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Finally someone posted something factual. Thanks! Reading now.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  Scott Alexander has a good post on this, and he convinced me of a “good faith” explanation for the recommendations against (or, more accurately, “not in favor of”) face masks: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
  - cyphar 7y ago
    I hadn't seen that post before, and it does seem quite reasonable -- but I don't think it really vindicates the advice (nee propaganda) from government officials, unless there was no other way to alleviate shortages. The conclusion is effectively "we don't know for sure, but they do appear to help somewhat" -- which means that (all other things being equal) not recommending masks appears to be a net negative.
  - nullc 7y ago
    His explanation does not explain statements like https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...
- h91wka 7y ago
  > This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks. There's nothing noble about it. This is extremely short-sighted. What is easier to solve, shortage of masks, or shortage of ICU beds and medical personnel? I would imagine that a face mask is a relatively low-tech good that can be mass-produced at scale. You cannot ramp up production of ICU beds and nurses and doctors. If this is true, then the consequences of this "noble" decision will make Chernobyl blush.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Avoiding mask shortages is a noble goal (note that you're agreeing with me here -- mass-producing masks would also have avoided shortages). Whether or not the method employed was ethical or not is a separate question (and I agree with you that it was not because of how short-sighted it was).
    - h91wka 7y ago
      > note that you're agreeing with me here I am not. My point is that solving the problem of mask shortage by allowing the infection to spread at full speed is like setting your home on fire to deal with a clogged pipe.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        To say that somebody had a "noble goal" is to state that their intentions were good, not malicious. That is not the same as being correct. You are pointing out that they were shortsighted fools who did more damage than good, which I agree with, but that's not incompatible with having good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
raaaaraaaa12 7y ago
Yes that's right even your own DIY face mask protect other people. And that's enough to slow down spreading... You dont know for first ~5-6 days whether you are infected or not. https://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-making-diy-face-masks-amidst-shortages-due-to-coronavirus-2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-making-diy-face-m... Don't worry too much about effectiveness of DIY face masks - in few months Respilon and other Czech companies will put on market face masks made from nanomaterials which filters virus much more effectively ;)
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Valid rebuttal, thanks. OK, I think that the mask over your own face is to prevent viral spread in largish water particles caused by coughs and sneezes, not general breathing (I'm not sure general breathing spreads much virus anyway, but I don't know). So if you are infected and not showing symptoms ie. not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. Arguably not, but we need more data - can anyone comment with sources?
  - Lewton 7y ago
    > not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. People cough and sneeze all the time even if they're not sick.....
  - raaaaraaaa12 7y ago
    Even if you are breathing calmly mask will catch some small water droplets so spreading is somehow contained. It's true that after ~1 hour wowen mask will become wet and no longer effective. But it's not problem wear some other masks in your bag and change it... Currently there's huge shortage of respiratory protection products globally so your old wowen tshirt will help you :)
  - mcsb4 7y ago
    > So if you are infected and not showing symptoms ie. not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. It prevents you from touching your mouth and your nose and thus getting it on your hands. There is an excellent video visualising the spreading of germs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5-dI74zxPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5-dI74zxPg How To See Germs Spread (Coronavirus) by Marc Tober Maybe that convinces you.
haunter 7y ago
> wearing a mask if YOU are infected will help protect other people How do I know I'm not infected? There are a lot of asymptomatic carriers, that's the main problem. A lot of people still think that no symptomps = not infected = no mask needed but that's totally wrong
nikbackm 7y ago
You might not know that you are infected.
mantas 7y ago
Wearing mask discourages you from touching your face with your hands. If someone sneezes at you, even most simple mask will stop at least 50% of viruses. If someone was far away and only a small load reached you, that may be enough to keep you safe. > (And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway) The big problem is to know when you're infected. Mask keeps others safe if you're not aware that you're infected. Some reports say that you start distributing viruses pretty much immediately after getting it yourself. Even if all contacts (which is far from guaranteed) get traced and you get checked and/or isolated in a day or two, you'd be already spreading viruses for that timeframe.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  > Wearing mask discourages you from touching your face with your hands Good point! > If someone sneezes at you, even most simple mask will stop at least 50% of viruses sounds plausible, but any reference for that figure?
  - mantas 7y ago
    That's what is posted in our local media. I'm not sure if it comes from local gov agencies or WHO or something else. FFP2 / N95 respirators - 90-something percent, medical "blue" masks - 80 percent, home-made piece-of-cloth style ~ 50%. Wearing sunglasses is encouraged too. Both to stop the load if someone sneezes at you and discourage from touching your eyes.
    - brutt 7y ago
      N95 - 95% at least. Medical mask - 96,4%. Home made mask - 60-96% (depends on cloth and sewing). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_the_Efficacy_of_Homemade_Masks_Would_They_Protect_in_an_Influenza_Pandemic https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...
      - mantas 7y ago
        Maybe you and I have different medical masks in mind? I was talking about masks like this: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0080/6830/0851/products/6_H2e77544679464ffab917e50b7b651d34G_1200x1200.jpg?v=1583272133 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0080/6830/0851/products/6_... https://www.123rf.com/photo_138981777_stock-vector-person-wearing-disposable-medical-surgical-face-mask-to-protect-against-high-air-toxic-pollution-cit.html https://www.123rf.com/photo_138981777_stock-vector-person-we... https://phonetub.com/products/100-disposable-face-surgical-medical-mask-dental-anti-dust-flu-mouth-ear-loop https://phonetub.com/products/100-disposable-face-surgical-m... The main problem with blue masks and home made is that they tend to get wet from breath and their effectiveness go down the drain.
nopinsight 7y ago
You do NOT know if you are infected. Asymptomatic carriers is a major problem for COVID-19. A figure I saw was about 50% of infections come from them. Here's evidence and list of 34 science papers backing up the utility of masks in slowing down a viral epidemic: Thread with charts, articles, link to paper summaries: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 ADDED: Just the list of papers & their brief summaries: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/edit#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Could you post the list here for us who can't use twitter (permanently disabled JS).
  - llarsson 7y ago
    Then your browser does a shitty job of telling Twitter that. Properly blocked JS gives you a link to "legacy" Twitter, which works perfectly without JS. At least viewing, which is all I do. Does this link work for you? https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/124289437844...
    - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
      I've never been able to use it. I get sent to a "do you want to use legacy twitter?" thing, I click Yes and it just gives me the same screen again, every time. Happens I proxy through squid - it might have something to do with that. If I go direct (no proxy) it works. Interesting. At least I can get to it, and will read your link this evening. Thank you.
      - llarsson 7y ago
        Until I started blocking JS using uBlock Origin, my blocking must have been incomplete. Because I also saw that screen and it never worked. Now, it does.
mcsb4 7y ago
Many people don't know they are infected and also there is not enough testing capability in many countries. For example Heidi Klum tired to get tested after catching a cold and it took her several days to be accepted for a test. Now she is not exactly your average Joe and would be willing to shell out a few 1000 dollars to get tested. Unless that situation changes, masks are a good alternative. And yes, only if everybody wears them.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Lewton 7y ago
Seriously. How is it possible to still be ignorant about the (up to) 2 week asymptomatic incubation period? This is the entire reason why the virus is so dangerous! And where did OP mention anything about masks protecting the carrier from infection?
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  See my other reply. Plus I said "And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway"
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Plus I said "And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway" The point you're missing there is that some people are asymptomatic. They don't know they're infected.
endorphone 7y ago
"no known protective effect" Right. No one has ever studied contagions among the community at large and the effect of masks. When you hear people say there is no evidence, this is what they are referring. "is not thought to be any more protective than not wearing one" This is taking that claim too far, and is seldom what they're saying. Or rather never what they are saying. Early on there were PDAs that discouraged masks because a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick, b) to discourage personal buyers competing with medical buyers, c) because the odds of coming into contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier was very low, whereas it's high to very high for medical professionals. We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work -- that's why medical professionals wear them -- and even the lowly surgical mask has the same effectiveness blocking pathogens in as they do out, especially aerosol pathogens like this one. And of course we know that people can be spreading this without symptoms, so it would be a massive win just for that. As supplies normalize and manufacturers ramp up, we're quickly going to be at a place where most in the West will be wearing a mask of some fashion, and it will be officially encouraged. This whole weird anti-mask paranoia will have cost lives. Masks aren't a panacea, of course, They should be properly worn and rotated. Add that they increase the effort the lungs have to exert, especially N95 masks, so in a unfortunate irony people with compromised lungs -- the most vulnerable to COVID-19 -- have the most difficulty using masks.
- throwaway743 7y ago
  >a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick Definitely experienced the stigma of wearing one in public. Have had reactions ranging from stares to hurriedly moving away from me. > We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work To add, why else would NY ask older folks to wear masks when going outside? Also, this NIH study adds to support that masks are effective. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453
  - 7y ago
throwaway743 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453
mikemotherwell 7y ago
Let's assume healthy people do not need a mask. In fact, let's take it as Gospel, and the statement "Healthy people have no use for a mask" as absolutely true. Given we know there are people with COVID-19 who are asymptomatic, any "Healthy people have no use for a mask" can simultaneously be true, and be practically irrelevant, as any definition of "healthy people" is necessarily impossible to prove. You simply can not know you are free of Corona Virus, short of having recovered from the virus. If the standard was EVERYONE wears a mask, asymptomatic people would be a non-issue. Any advice contrary to the 100% mask usage argument has to explain how we deal with asymptomatic people. Short of testing everyone all the time, what would that even be? TL;DR In a world with asymptomatic COVID-19 people, a 100% mask policy seems the sane default position.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  Then WHY ARE SO MANY EXPERTS TELLING US WHAT I QUOTED? What you say (and others too) makes sense to me and I could well believe it true, but I'm NOT claiming that masks are useless unless you are infected, I'M ASKING IF ANYBODY KNOWS WHY EXPERTS ARE SAYING OTHERWISE (or whether I just heard an unluckily skewed sample) Plus, I also asked for a citation to back up the poster's position, not common-sense arguments (which are a good starting point but not evidence in themselves).
  - mikemotherwell 7y ago
    Masks may be 100% irrelevant for healthy people, but we have asymptomatic people. There is no way to ascertain who is healthy, ergo "healthy people don't need masks" is practically redundant. What am I missing? Oh, and you want citations, sorry, my bad: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/edit#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p... - 30 some citations on masks.
    - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
      > What am I missing? See my reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22701821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22701821 Mind, I just don't know if what I'm saying there holds water. Citations are good, following up!
j7ake 7y ago
This advice is completely contrary to anything that happens inside a hospital. Nurses and doctors are wearing surgical masks (and N95 masks plus face shield if performing actions that may generate aerosols) to protect themselves from getting sick while treating patients. The problem is that you can have COVID19 and be contagious without showing symptoms. Mandating everybody to wear some sort of mask should reduce transmissions because it should reduce the viral load in the air. By how much? It is not clear, but it's not worth waiting for results from a randomized double blind clinical trial during a global pandemic. I would put money that the effect of putting on a mask will be at least as effective as washing hands. The danger to be careful of is if wearing mask can make you more sick, but the current actions from healthcare workers around the world suggests it is not the case. Another point some people argue is that wearing a mask in public means one less mask for health care workers. This is false on two fronts, one because mask supplies will soon flood the market and there are DIY solutions to masks that can reduce transmissibility; two because what's best for health care workers is not to get sick at all.
- foobarian 7y ago
  I am hopeful that the US public may warm up to masks in public in the future. It seems likely this would cut down on the spread of seasonal flu and common colds.
RedBeetDeadpool 7y ago
So I was in agreement with this, and the science is that yes it only helps in containing the infection if the person infected is wearing the mask. However, if healthy people aren't wearing the masks, and only the unhealthy are, then the unhealthy don't want to signal they are unhealthy so they don't either. A huge part of getting the infected to wear masks is to get the healthy to wear masks so the infected don't put a huge label on themselves that indicates: "diseased", "corrupted", "infectious", "frail", "unclean" etc. Logic says one thing, but people are not logical like machines.

cyphar 7y ago

This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks. The evidence very much shows that wearing masks can reduce community transmission rates of SARS-like viruses -- up to 70% even with just plain surgical masks[2]. And even if you don't buy that, everyone wearing a mask means that asymptomatic carriers (who have no idea they're sick) cannot spread it as effectively. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-... [2]: https://medium.com/@adrien.burch/whats-the-evidence-on-face-masks-5f3c27a18cc https://medium.com/@adrien.burch/whats-the-evidence-on-face-...

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Finally someone posted something factual. Thanks! Reading now.
KarlKemp 7y ago
Scott Alexander has a good post on this, and he convinced me of a “good faith” explanation for the recommendations against (or, more accurately, “not in favor of”) face masks: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
- cyphar 7y ago
  I hadn't seen that post before, and it does seem quite reasonable -- but I don't think it really vindicates the advice (nee propaganda) from government officials, unless there was no other way to alleviate shortages. The conclusion is effectively "we don't know for sure, but they do appear to help somewhat" -- which means that (all other things being equal) not recommending masks appears to be a net negative.
- nullc 7y ago
  His explanation does not explain statements like https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...
h91wka 7y ago
> This was a coordinated (dare I say "propaganda") campaign by US and other government officials in order to try to avoid mask shortages[1]. A noble goal, sure -- but the net result is that people are now misinformed about the efficacy of masks. There's nothing noble about it. This is extremely short-sighted. What is easier to solve, shortage of masks, or shortage of ICU beds and medical personnel? I would imagine that a face mask is a relatively low-tech good that can be mass-produced at scale. You cannot ramp up production of ICU beds and nurses and doctors. If this is true, then the consequences of this "noble" decision will make Chernobyl blush.
- cyphar 7y ago
  Avoiding mask shortages is a noble goal (note that you're agreeing with me here -- mass-producing masks would also have avoided shortages). Whether or not the method employed was ethical or not is a separate question (and I agree with you that it was not because of how short-sighted it was).
  - h91wka 7y ago
    > note that you're agreeing with me here I am not. My point is that solving the problem of mask shortage by allowing the infection to spread at full speed is like setting your home on fire to deal with a clogged pipe.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      To say that somebody had a "noble goal" is to state that their intentions were good, not malicious. That is not the same as being correct. You are pointing out that they were shortsighted fools who did more damage than good, which I agree with, but that's not incompatible with having good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

raaaaraaaa12 7y ago

Yes that's right even your own DIY face mask protect other people. And that's enough to slow down spreading... You dont know for first ~5-6 days whether you are infected or not. https://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-making-diy-face-masks-amidst-shortages-due-to-coronavirus-2020 https://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-making-diy-face-m... Don't worry too much about effectiveness of DIY face masks - in few months Respilon and other Czech companies will put on market face masks made from nanomaterials which filters virus much more effectively ;)

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Valid rebuttal, thanks. OK, I think that the mask over your own face is to prevent viral spread in largish water particles caused by coughs and sneezes, not general breathing (I'm not sure general breathing spreads much virus anyway, but I don't know). So if you are infected and not showing symptoms ie. not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. Arguably not, but we need more data - can anyone comment with sources?
- Lewton 7y ago
  > not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. People cough and sneeze all the time even if they're not sick.....
- raaaaraaaa12 7y ago
  Even if you are breathing calmly mask will catch some small water droplets so spreading is somehow contained. It's true that after ~1 hour wowen mask will become wet and no longer effective. But it's not problem wear some other masks in your bag and change it... Currently there's huge shortage of respiratory protection products globally so your old wowen tshirt will help you :)
- mcsb4 7y ago
  > So if you are infected and not showing symptoms ie. not coughing/sneezing then arguably the mask is not doing anything. It prevents you from touching your mouth and your nose and thus getting it on your hands. There is an excellent video visualising the spreading of germs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5-dI74zxPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5-dI74zxPg How To See Germs Spread (Coronavirus) by Marc Tober Maybe that convinces you.

haunter 7y ago

> wearing a mask if YOU are infected will help protect other people How do I know I'm not infected? There are a lot of asymptomatic carriers, that's the main problem. A lot of people still think that no symptomps = not infected = no mask needed but that's totally wrong

nikbackm 7y ago

You might not know that you are infected.

mantas 7y ago

Wearing mask discourages you from touching your face with your hands. If someone sneezes at you, even most simple mask will stop at least 50% of viruses. If someone was far away and only a small load reached you, that may be enough to keep you safe. > (And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway) The big problem is to know when you're infected. Mask keeps others safe if you're not aware that you're infected. Some reports say that you start distributing viruses pretty much immediately after getting it yourself. Even if all contacts (which is far from guaranteed) get traced and you get checked and/or isolated in a day or two, you'd be already spreading viruses for that timeframe.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
> Wearing mask discourages you from touching your face with your hands Good point! > If someone sneezes at you, even most simple mask will stop at least 50% of viruses sounds plausible, but any reference for that figure?
- mantas 7y ago
  That's what is posted in our local media. I'm not sure if it comes from local gov agencies or WHO or something else. FFP2 / N95 respirators - 90-something percent, medical "blue" masks - 80 percent, home-made piece-of-cloth style ~ 50%. Wearing sunglasses is encouraged too. Both to stop the load if someone sneezes at you and discourage from touching your eyes.
  - brutt 7y ago
    N95 - 95% at least. Medical mask - 96,4%. Home made mask - 60-96% (depends on cloth and sewing). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_the_Efficacy_of_Homemade_Masks_Would_They_Protect_in_an_Influenza_Pandemic https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...
    - mantas 7y ago
      Maybe you and I have different medical masks in mind? I was talking about masks like this: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0080/6830/0851/products/6_H2e77544679464ffab917e50b7b651d34G_1200x1200.jpg?v=1583272133 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0080/6830/0851/products/6_... https://www.123rf.com/photo_138981777_stock-vector-person-wearing-disposable-medical-surgical-face-mask-to-protect-against-high-air-toxic-pollution-cit.html https://www.123rf.com/photo_138981777_stock-vector-person-we... https://phonetub.com/products/100-disposable-face-surgical-medical-mask-dental-anti-dust-flu-mouth-ear-loop https://phonetub.com/products/100-disposable-face-surgical-m... The main problem with blue masks and home made is that they tend to get wet from breath and their effectiveness go down the drain.

nopinsight 7y ago

You do NOT know if you are infected. Asymptomatic carriers is a major problem for COVID-19. A figure I saw was about 50% of infections come from them. Here's evidence and list of 34 science papers backing up the utility of masks in slowing down a viral epidemic: Thread with charts, articles, link to paper summaries: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 ADDED: Just the list of papers & their brief summaries: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/edit#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Could you post the list here for us who can't use twitter (permanently disabled JS).
- llarsson 7y ago
  Then your browser does a shitty job of telling Twitter that. Properly blocked JS gives you a link to "legacy" Twitter, which works perfectly without JS. At least viewing, which is all I do. Does this link work for you? https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1242894378441506816 https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/124289437844...
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    I've never been able to use it. I get sent to a "do you want to use legacy twitter?" thing, I click Yes and it just gives me the same screen again, every time. Happens I proxy through squid - it might have something to do with that. If I go direct (no proxy) it works. Interesting. At least I can get to it, and will read your link this evening. Thank you.
    - llarsson 7y ago
      Until I started blocking JS using uBlock Origin, my blocking must have been incomplete. Because I also saw that screen and it never worked. Now, it does.

mcsb4 7y ago

Many people don't know they are infected and also there is not enough testing capability in many countries. For example Heidi Klum tired to get tested after catching a cold and it took her several days to be accepted for a test. Now she is not exactly your average Joe and would be willing to shell out a few 1000 dollars to get tested. Unless that situation changes, masks are a good alternative. And yes, only if everybody wears them.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Lewton 7y ago

Seriously. How is it possible to still be ignorant about the (up to) 2 week asymptomatic incubation period? This is the entire reason why the virus is so dangerous! And where did OP mention anything about masks protecting the carrier from infection?

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
See my other reply. Plus I said "And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway"
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Plus I said "And if YOU are infected you should not be out anyway" The point you're missing there is that some people are asymptomatic. They don't know they're infected.

endorphone 7y ago

"no known protective effect" Right. No one has ever studied contagions among the community at large and the effect of masks. When you hear people say there is no evidence, this is what they are referring. "is not thought to be any more protective than not wearing one" This is taking that claim too far, and is seldom what they're saying. Or rather never what they are saying. Early on there were PDAs that discouraged masks because a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick, b) to discourage personal buyers competing with medical buyers, c) because the odds of coming into contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier was very low, whereas it's high to very high for medical professionals. We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work -- that's why medical professionals wear them -- and even the lowly surgical mask has the same effectiveness blocking pathogens in as they do out, especially aerosol pathogens like this one. And of course we know that people can be spreading this without symptoms, so it would be a massive win just for that. As supplies normalize and manufacturers ramp up, we're quickly going to be at a place where most in the West will be wearing a mask of some fashion, and it will be officially encouraged. This whole weird anti-mask paranoia will have cost lives. Masks aren't a panacea, of course, They should be properly worn and rotated. Add that they increase the effort the lungs have to exert, especially N95 masks, so in a unfortunate irony people with compromised lungs -- the most vulnerable to COVID-19 -- have the most difficulty using masks.

throwaway743 7y ago
>a) there is a weird social effect in much of the West where people get panicky, and somehow view someone else wearing a mask as increasing the odds, or at least the reality, that they instead will get sick Definitely experienced the stigma of wearing one in public. Have had reactions ranging from stares to hurriedly moving away from me. > We need to discard with that bullshit. We know with overwhelming evidence that masks work To add, why else would NY ask older folks to wear masks when going outside? Also, this NIH study adds to support that masks are effective. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453
- 7y ago

throwaway743 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22485453

mikemotherwell 7y ago

Let's assume healthy people do not need a mask. In fact, let's take it as Gospel, and the statement "Healthy people have no use for a mask" as absolutely true. Given we know there are people with COVID-19 who are asymptomatic, any "Healthy people have no use for a mask" can simultaneously be true, and be practically irrelevant, as any definition of "healthy people" is necessarily impossible to prove. You simply can not know you are free of Corona Virus, short of having recovered from the virus. If the standard was EVERYONE wears a mask, asymptomatic people would be a non-issue. Any advice contrary to the 100% mask usage argument has to explain how we deal with asymptomatic people. Short of testing everyone all the time, what would that even be? TL;DR In a world with asymptomatic COVID-19 people, a 100% mask policy seems the sane default position.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
Then WHY ARE SO MANY EXPERTS TELLING US WHAT I QUOTED? What you say (and others too) makes sense to me and I could well believe it true, but I'm NOT claiming that masks are useless unless you are infected, I'M ASKING IF ANYBODY KNOWS WHY EXPERTS ARE SAYING OTHERWISE (or whether I just heard an unluckily skewed sample) Plus, I also asked for a citation to back up the poster's position, not common-sense arguments (which are a good starting point but not evidence in themselves).
- mikemotherwell 7y ago
  Masks may be 100% irrelevant for healthy people, but we have asymptomatic people. There is no way to ascertain who is healthy, ergo "healthy people don't need masks" is practically redundant. What am I missing? Oh, and you want citations, sorry, my bad: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/edit#heading=h.9yzpxufkt5ow https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p... - 30 some citations on masks.
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    > What am I missing? See my reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22701821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22701821 Mind, I just don't know if what I'm saying there holds water. Citations are good, following up!

j7ake 7y ago

This advice is completely contrary to anything that happens inside a hospital. Nurses and doctors are wearing surgical masks (and N95 masks plus face shield if performing actions that may generate aerosols) to protect themselves from getting sick while treating patients. The problem is that you can have COVID19 and be contagious without showing symptoms. Mandating everybody to wear some sort of mask should reduce transmissions because it should reduce the viral load in the air. By how much? It is not clear, but it's not worth waiting for results from a randomized double blind clinical trial during a global pandemic. I would put money that the effect of putting on a mask will be at least as effective as washing hands. The danger to be careful of is if wearing mask can make you more sick, but the current actions from healthcare workers around the world suggests it is not the case. Another point some people argue is that wearing a mask in public means one less mask for health care workers. This is false on two fronts, one because mask supplies will soon flood the market and there are DIY solutions to masks that can reduce transmissibility; two because what's best for health care workers is not to get sick at all.

foobarian 7y ago
I am hopeful that the US public may warm up to masks in public in the future. It seems likely this would cut down on the spread of seasonal flu and common colds.

RedBeetDeadpool 7y ago

So I was in agreement with this, and the science is that yes it only helps in containing the infection if the person infected is wearing the mask. However, if healthy people aren't wearing the masks, and only the unhealthy are, then the unhealthy don't want to signal they are unhealthy so they don't either. A huge part of getting the infected to wear masks is to get the healthy to wear masks so the infected don't put a huge label on themselves that indicates: "diseased", "corrupted", "infectious", "frail", "unclean" etc. Logic says one thing, but people are not logical like machines.