4 ms·

> 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 asymptomat

by 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
  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/) Can't really tell if those people "improperly" wore the masks but most people prior to COVID-19 wore standard surgical style masks. As I stated in my previous post, doing things to limit transmission is not a binary act. Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all. Just because we can't completely eliminate Covid-19 doesn't mean that we shouldn't flatten the curve.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Yes, I'm reading the actual study too. It proves nothing which is why they conclude with: > We recommend a more compre- hensive intervention study to accurately estimate the pro- tective effect of face masks for preventing influenza virus transmission on long-distance flights. accurately being the operative word. > Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all. I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission. > Just because we can't completely eliminate Covid-19 doesn't mean that we shouldn't flatten the curve. That's a poor comparison, of course we should flatten the curve using methods that are shown to be effective.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      > I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission. Ironically, this is probably how we got into this mess in the first place, because some Chinese medicine cure prescribed eating wild bat meat.
      - chrischen 7y ago
        Bill gates was recently talking on TV about how the virus could have mutated from anywhere... there's also swine flu, bird flu, mad cow disease, yet Jewish and Muslim people don't go around blaming Mexican/American people for their swine consumption sins (at least they shouldn't). Blaming it on the fact that Chinese people ate Bat meat is as bit culturally prejudicial as calling it the Chinese virus.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Chinese medicine has a lot of costs for little if any benefits. Disease from live animals is just one of them, but then their is the medical resources wasted on not really cures, hospital profiteering, and not to mention causing entire species to become endangered or even extinct. Peer review and control study the stuff that works and call it normal medicine, the rest of the folk cures might as well be homeopathy. Blame Mao for calling this junk Chinese medicine in the first place, before he pushed forward the concept to make up for a lack of real medical resources, it was all just a bunch of disparate folk cures in and around the country.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  > It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. But it might not even be 10% or 1% protection, especially outdoors outside of a sterile hospital environment. Is it worth wearing them for a some small amount of protection, or is the false sense of security they provide more dangerous than their benefit? Surgical masks are pretty leaky compared to N95 masks we wore during crazy bad air days in Beijing, but the latter are so uncomfortable that they cause people to touch their face more, doing more harm than good in this context. That’s why all the videos we see in Asia just have crowds wearing flimsy surgical masks, I mean, they are super easy to wear, so why not, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking they are doing much good.
  - verroq 7y ago
    It's not just about protection, it's also about preventing people that are sick and asymptomatic from spreading. >but the latter are so uncomfortable that they cause people to touch their face more The logic just doesn't work here, you can't touch your face if you have a mask on and N95 respirators aren't as unconformable as you claim, if anything they are often higher quality and the cheap elastic bands on surgical masks are more uncomfortable on the ears. >That’s why all the videos we see in Asia just have crowds wearing flimsy surgical masks It's because they can't get N95 masks. No one wears a mask for comfort.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I’ve worn many N95 masks and have constantly been touching my face to adjust them while being worn, they also irritate your skin around your face where they try to make a seal (this wasn’t even a pandemic, just a 700+ bad air day). They are super uncomfortable. Surgical masks are easy to wear in comparison, but they are also basically noops.
      - verroq 7y ago
        Surgical masks are roughly 6 times better than nothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23498357 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23498357 I have also worn N95 masks and they aren't as uncomfortable as you describe.

by verroq 7y ago

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
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/) Can't really tell if those people "improperly" wore the masks but most people prior to COVID-19 wore standard surgical style masks. As I stated in my previous post, doing things to limit transmission is not a binary act. Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all. Just because we can't completely eliminate Covid-19 doesn't mean that we shouldn't flatten the curve.
- brigandish 7y ago
  Yes, I'm reading the actual study too. It proves nothing which is why they conclude with: > We recommend a more compre- hensive intervention study to accurately estimate the pro- tective effect of face masks for preventing influenza virus transmission on long-distance flights. accurately being the operative word. > Just because you can't limit transmission all day does not mean that you should not try at all. I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission. > Just because we can't completely eliminate Covid-19 doesn't mean that we shouldn't flatten the curve. That's a poor comparison, of course we should flatten the curve using methods that are shown to be effective.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    > I have not suggested not to try, only to do things that actually work and are evidence based. Would you suggest wearing an amulet? They wear those in Asia too. They have a modern version in the shops in Japan, I forget its name but it's a little bag of something you wear round your neck that they claim prevents flu transmission. Ironically, this is probably how we got into this mess in the first place, because some Chinese medicine cure prescribed eating wild bat meat.
    - chrischen 7y ago
      Bill gates was recently talking on TV about how the virus could have mutated from anywhere... there's also swine flu, bird flu, mad cow disease, yet Jewish and Muslim people don't go around blaming Mexican/American people for their swine consumption sins (at least they shouldn't). Blaming it on the fact that Chinese people ate Bat meat is as bit culturally prejudicial as calling it the Chinese virus.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Chinese medicine has a lot of costs for little if any benefits. Disease from live animals is just one of them, but then their is the medical resources wasted on not really cures, hospital profiteering, and not to mention causing entire species to become endangered or even extinct. Peer review and control study the stuff that works and call it normal medicine, the rest of the folk cures might as well be homeopathy. Blame Mao for calling this junk Chinese medicine in the first place, before he pushed forward the concept to make up for a lack of real medical resources, it was all just a bunch of disparate folk cures in and around the country.
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
> It's not about achieving 100% perfect protection, it's about some protection. But it might not even be 10% or 1% protection, especially outdoors outside of a sterile hospital environment. Is it worth wearing them for a some small amount of protection, or is the false sense of security they provide more dangerous than their benefit? Surgical masks are pretty leaky compared to N95 masks we wore during crazy bad air days in Beijing, but the latter are so uncomfortable that they cause people to touch their face more, doing more harm than good in this context. That’s why all the videos we see in Asia just have crowds wearing flimsy surgical masks, I mean, they are super easy to wear, so why not, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking they are doing much good.
- verroq 7y ago
  It's not just about protection, it's also about preventing people that are sick and asymptomatic from spreading. >but the latter are so uncomfortable that they cause people to touch their face more The logic just doesn't work here, you can't touch your face if you have a mask on and N95 respirators aren't as unconformable as you claim, if anything they are often higher quality and the cheap elastic bands on surgical masks are more uncomfortable on the ears. >That’s why all the videos we see in Asia just have crowds wearing flimsy surgical masks It's because they can't get N95 masks. No one wears a mask for comfort.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I’ve worn many N95 masks and have constantly been touching my face to adjust them while being worn, they also irritate your skin around your face where they try to make a seal (this wasn’t even a pandemic, just a 700+ bad air day). They are super uncomfortable. Surgical masks are easy to wear in comparison, but they are also basically noops.
    - verroq 7y ago
      Surgical masks are roughly 6 times better than nothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23498357 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23498357 I have also worn N95 masks and they aren't as uncomfortable as you describe.