5 ms·

Japan has had a low infection rate because of their strong mask-wearing culture. Western countries are experiencing higher rates of COVID-19 infections compared

Japan has had a low infection rate because of their strong mask-wearing culture. Western countries are experiencing higher rates of COVID-19 infections compared to Asian countries because of the West's aversion to wearing masks. Please help me spread this message http://www.maskssavelives.org/ http://www.maskssavelives.org/

ojbyrne 7y ago
It seems more likely at this point that they have a low infection rate because they aren’t testing.
- 2019-nCoV 7y ago
  Their positivity rate (5.1%) suggests otherwise.
brigandish 7y ago
I don't know how many times this is going to come up on these page but this is unsupported by any study for the kind of masks people actually wear and for a non-clinical setting, and anyone who has spent any time here will know it's rubbish. Just last night my wife was telling me about a conversation with her work colleagues about masks. She wears one per day, one to work and the same one for the way home - this is already going outside the bounds of any study I've read. Her colleagues told her that she must be rich to use that many masks, they use the same one for two or three days in a row. Just one of the many anecdotes you can hear and confirm with your own experience if you're ever here. I have others, the ones about coughing and sneezing behaviour in public will make you shudder.
- kevinpet 7y ago
  If you claim "these specific details aren't supported by studies" that's compelling evidence if studies have been done, or would have a reason to be done, or if there's reason to believe the other studies that support similar conclusion are sufficiently different to not be relevant.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Studies haven't been done that support the claims that "masks work in non-clinical settings like a train or a street when used by a wearer who is not under supervision and is has not had training and is probably using their mask again for the nth time" When that study comes out, let me know. The studies that have been done on surgical mask wearing show a very low and variable effect anyway. Would you like to see the one I saw on here from the other day that said wearing masks was more effective than handwashing? No one's going to switch handwashing for a mask though, are they? ;-)
- verroq 7y ago
  It's obvious that wearing a mask helps. > Don't wear a mask because they don't work > Doctors and nurses need masks because they work > ??? If anything, it prevents/reduces asymptomatic people from spreading.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    You can tell me in 2 weeks time if that's true when the number of actual cases is impossible for the government to deny any more. As to the masks, in a clinical setting: - clinicians will likely get much closer to someone - patients are much more likely to have an infection - masks are worn properly - masks are disposed of properly - the wearers have had extensive training and experience They don't, as a salaryman might, pull down their mask to talk to you, or to sneeze so they don't have to use a new mask in the afternoon. Edit: formatting, I always forget (sorry).
    - verroq 7y ago
      > clinicians will likely get much closer to someone > patients are much more likely to have an infection Most of the spread is from people that are asymptomatic. You don't know who has the virus or not. So if the argument here is that doctors and nurses are at higher risk, and need more protection, then my counter argument is that you don't know what the risk is simply because people can be asymptomatic. Secondly, masks a very effective at preventing already sick people from spreading the disease. Given the vast majority cases are asymptomatic and the infected don't even know they are sick, if everyone had masks it would dramatically reduce spread from the asymptomatic. Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. Even if somebody pulled down their mask to sneeze, if everyone else had masks on then it won't be as big of a deal.
      - brigandish 7y ago
        > Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. You can supply the study for that too. From what I've read, and I've been reading as many as I can, it's not true. > verroq 4 minutes ago | parent | on: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as n... Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. > Even if somebody pulled down their mask to sneeze, if everyone else had masks on then it won't be as big of a deal. This is also not true. You have to prevent transmission all day not just in one event or it's meaningless.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Even if a mask doesn't protect a person sneezing into your face from transmitting the virus to you, that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise... and hospitals wouldn't be clamoring for them if they were ineffective (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-hospitals-forbid-physicians-and-nurses-from-wearing-masks/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-...). With just a bit of common sense you can reason that masks absolutely do help prevent the spread of the virus: 1. A strong mask culture in dense areas means that even sick people will be incentivized to wear masks, which is known to be effective in limiting transmission. Studies on airplanes have shown that a sick person wearing a mask can stop the transmission on a plane. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/) 2. The mask prevents you from touching your mouth with your hands, and reminds you to not touch your face. 3. Many people in Japan wear masks to prevent stuff from their own mouths going into other peoples' faces, and not for the commonly assumed selfish reasons for wearing one that Americans keep focusing on. 4. The effectiveness of masks is not binary. Recommendations against using masks probably come because a) people are probably doing other things that are already higher risk than not wearing a mask and b) there is a shortage of masks. Some more tidbits cited from the study: Less efficient face masks (e.g., surgical or medical) also decrease exposure to aerosols of droplet nuclei to a lesser (8–12 fold) degree than N95 masks (36), and they provide protection against larger droplets. We did not determine the type of mask worn by the passengers; presumably, individually acquired masks represented a mixture of N95 and other less efficient masks. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/)
  - brigandish 7y ago
    I'll take this in parts which I always think looks aggressive but I assure you it's not. We're all concerned and want the best :) > that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise It may not be 100% ineffective for a single event, it needs to be effective over the entire period of use. Point 1, yes, sick people should wear masks. This is already known. Most people aren't sick. > 2. The mask prevents you from touching your mouth with your hands, and reminds you to not touch your face. If you've worn one or watched people on the train in Japan or across Asia you'll know this isn't true at all. People are forever readjusting it. > 3. Many people in Japan wear masks to prevent stuff from their own mouths going into other peoples' faces, and not for the commonly assumed selfish reasons for wearing one that Americans keep focusing on. They wear them for many reasons, and they're people so they're just as selfish as Americans or anyone else, and that's certainly my experience. 4b is certainly true. 4a is partly true because if people aren't going to use masks correctly - and they don't - then there really is no point to them other than to deny people access to them by those who really need them, and in settings that studies really have shown a positive effect.
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  I know this is outside the usual way of arguing what's true, but: the studies are wrong. They're underpowered and poorly designed. The smart money is on masks working, at least when used in a widespread way by the population as a whole. Benefit to individuals is much harder to show, hence why studies have failed to show it. The chloroquinine drug, or whatever it's called, I bet that will turn out to be effective as well. Studies so far have been not powerful enough to show it definitively, but have you noticed the stuff has been selling out long before Trump opened his mouth? And it's not just idiots who will eat fishtank cleaner without checking the dose or the other ingredients that are buying it, it's nations, and doctors. Did you know Parachutes have never had a randomised controlled trial to determine whether they are effective? There are many things that there are good reason to think are true, that science has failed to show definitively yet. Masks is one of them. I think people will eat their words on this one, and anyone reading this should take their trust in randomised controlled trials down a notch. They are designed to have a low false-positive rate. But their false-negatives are through the roof.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    > Did you know Parachutes have never had a randomised controlled trial to determine whether they are effective? Because people used them and it was obvious when they worked and when they didn't. That's not the case for masks.
- pwg 7y ago
  We need #masks4all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDwXwZXsDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDwXwZXsDI An actual data scientist looks at research he was able to dig up.
arcturus17 7y ago
Countries without "mask-wearing cultures" like Switzerland or Germany are doing exceptionally well compared to others in Europe. But above all, there's no scientific basis to what you're saying.
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  No they're not. They have high per-capita case numbers and no better success at slowing the growth rate than others.
guacamole4 7y ago
Do you have a scientific or official source for this?

ojbyrne 7y ago

It seems more likely at this point that they have a low infection rate because they aren’t testing.

2019-nCoV 7y ago
Their positivity rate (5.1%) suggests otherwise.

brigandish 7y ago

I don't know how many times this is going to come up on these page but this is unsupported by any study for the kind of masks people actually wear and for a non-clinical setting, and anyone who has spent any time here will know it's rubbish. Just last night my wife was telling me about a conversation with her work colleagues about masks. She wears one per day, one to work and the same one for the way home - this is already going outside the bounds of any study I've read. Her colleagues told her that she must be rich to use that many masks, they use the same one for two or three days in a row. Just one of the many anecdotes you can hear and confirm with your own experience if you're ever here. I have others, the ones about coughing and sneezing behaviour in public will make you shudder.

kevinpet 7y ago
If you claim "these specific details aren't supported by studies" that's compelling evidence if studies have been done, or would have a reason to be done, or if there's reason to believe the other studies that support similar conclusion are sufficiently different to not be relevant.
- brigandish 7y ago
  Studies haven't been done that support the claims that "masks work in non-clinical settings like a train or a street when used by a wearer who is not under supervision and is has not had training and is probably using their mask again for the nth time" When that study comes out, let me know. The studies that have been done on surgical mask wearing show a very low and variable effect anyway. Would you like to see the one I saw on here from the other day that said wearing masks was more effective than handwashing? No one's going to switch handwashing for a mask though, are they? ;-)
verroq 7y ago
It's obvious that wearing a mask helps. > Don't wear a mask because they don't work > Doctors and nurses need masks because they work > ??? If anything, it prevents/reduces asymptomatic people from spreading.
- brigandish 7y ago
  You can tell me in 2 weeks time if that's true when the number of actual cases is impossible for the government to deny any more. As to the masks, in a clinical setting: - clinicians will likely get much closer to someone - patients are much more likely to have an infection - masks are worn properly - masks are disposed of properly - the wearers have had extensive training and experience They don't, as a salaryman might, pull down their mask to talk to you, or to sneeze so they don't have to use a new mask in the afternoon. Edit: formatting, I always forget (sorry).
  - verroq 7y ago
    > clinicians will likely get much closer to someone > patients are much more likely to have an infection Most of the spread is from people that are asymptomatic. You don't know who has the virus or not. So if the argument here is that doctors and nurses are at higher risk, and need more protection, then my counter argument is that you don't know what the risk is simply because people can be asymptomatic. Secondly, masks a very effective at preventing already sick people from spreading the disease. Given the vast majority cases are asymptomatic and the infected don't even know they are sick, if everyone had masks it would dramatically reduce spread from the asymptomatic. Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. Even if somebody pulled down their mask to sneeze, if everyone else had masks on then it won't be as big of a deal.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      > Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. You can supply the study for that too. From what I've read, and I've been reading as many as I can, it's not true. > verroq 4 minutes ago | parent | on: Japan set to ban entry from the U.S. as early as n... Even an improperly worn mask is better than no mask. It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. > Even if somebody pulled down their mask to sneeze, if everyone else had masks on then it won't be as big of a deal. This is also not true. You have to prevent transmission all day not just in one event or it's meaningless.
chrischen 7y ago
Even if a mask doesn't protect a person sneezing into your face from transmitting the virus to you, that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise... and hospitals wouldn't be clamoring for them if they were ineffective (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-hospitals-forbid-physicians-and-nurses-from-wearing-masks/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-would-...). With just a bit of common sense you can reason that masks absolutely do help prevent the spread of the virus: 1. A strong mask culture in dense areas means that even sick people will be incentivized to wear masks, which is known to be effective in limiting transmission. Studies on airplanes have shown that a sick person wearing a mask can stop the transmission on a plane. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/) 2. The mask prevents you from touching your mouth with your hands, and reminds you to not touch your face. 3. Many people in Japan wear masks to prevent stuff from their own mouths going into other peoples' faces, and not for the commonly assumed selfish reasons for wearing one that Americans keep focusing on. 4. The effectiveness of masks is not binary. Recommendations against using masks probably come because a) people are probably doing other things that are already higher risk than not wearing a mask and b) there is a shortage of masks. Some more tidbits cited from the study: Less efficient face masks (e.g., surgical or medical) also decrease exposure to aerosols of droplet nuclei to a lesser (8–12 fold) degree than N95 masks (36), and they provide protection against larger droplets. We did not determine the type of mask worn by the passengers; presumably, individually acquired masks represented a mixture of N95 and other less efficient masks. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23968983/)
- brigandish 7y ago
  I'll take this in parts which I always think looks aggressive but I assure you it's not. We're all concerned and want the best :) > that hardly means that it is 100% ineffective otherwise It may not be 100% ineffective for a single event, it needs to be effective over the entire period of use. Point 1, yes, sick people should wear masks. This is already known. Most people aren't sick. > 2. The mask prevents you from touching your mouth with your hands, and reminds you to not touch your face. If you've worn one or watched people on the train in Japan or across Asia you'll know this isn't true at all. People are forever readjusting it. > 3. Many people in Japan wear masks to prevent stuff from their own mouths going into other peoples' faces, and not for the commonly assumed selfish reasons for wearing one that Americans keep focusing on. They wear them for many reasons, and they're people so they're just as selfish as Americans or anyone else, and that's certainly my experience. 4b is certainly true. 4a is partly true because if people aren't going to use masks correctly - and they don't - then there really is no point to them other than to deny people access to them by those who really need them, and in settings that studies really have shown a positive effect.
doubleunplussed 7y ago
I know this is outside the usual way of arguing what's true, but: the studies are wrong. They're underpowered and poorly designed. The smart money is on masks working, at least when used in a widespread way by the population as a whole. Benefit to individuals is much harder to show, hence why studies have failed to show it. The chloroquinine drug, or whatever it's called, I bet that will turn out to be effective as well. Studies so far have been not powerful enough to show it definitively, but have you noticed the stuff has been selling out long before Trump opened his mouth? And it's not just idiots who will eat fishtank cleaner without checking the dose or the other ingredients that are buying it, it's nations, and doctors. Did you know Parachutes have never had a randomised controlled trial to determine whether they are effective? There are many things that there are good reason to think are true, that science has failed to show definitively yet. Masks is one of them. I think people will eat their words on this one, and anyone reading this should take their trust in randomised controlled trials down a notch. They are designed to have a low false-positive rate. But their false-negatives are through the roof.
- brigandish 7y ago
  > Did you know Parachutes have never had a randomised controlled trial to determine whether they are effective? Because people used them and it was obvious when they worked and when they didn't. That's not the case for masks.
pwg 7y ago
We need #masks4all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDwXwZXsDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDwXwZXsDI An actual data scientist looks at research he was able to dig up.

arcturus17 7y ago

Countries without "mask-wearing cultures" like Switzerland or Germany are doing exceptionally well compared to others in Europe. But above all, there's no scientific basis to what you're saying.

doubleunplussed 7y ago
No they're not. They have high per-capita case numbers and no better success at slowing the growth rate than others.

guacamole4 7y ago

Do you have a scientific or official source for this?