3 ms·

From your "sciency article" > Even experts who favor masking the masses say their impact on the spread of disease is likely to be modest. Many are also afraid

From your "sciency article" > Even experts who favor masking the masses say their impact on the spread of disease is likely to be modest. Many are also afraid to promote mask buying amid dire shortages at hospitals. But as the pandemic wears on, some public health experts think government messages discouraging mask wearing should shift. > “It’s really a perfectly good public health intervention that’s not used,” argues KK Cheng, a public health expert at the University of Birmingham. “It’s not to protect yourself. It’s to protect people against the droplets coming out of your respiratory tract.” So even this pro-mask article makes it sound to me like wearing a mask will not protect you from getting the virus. At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick from infecting others. And that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them. That doesn't seem to be the case in the United States at present.

robocat 7y ago
That is pretty much correct from what I’ve read. But take care to differentiate between surgical masks (only help protect others), and N95 protects both ways (protects the wearer from others, protects others from the wearer). Go to 43:20 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw and Michael Osterholm (a very clued up epidemiologist) says: 1. Surgical masks help prevent transmission 2. N95 masks help prevent catching it Note also in that same section he says washing hands is probably a waste of time - because transmission vector is respiratory (duhhh). I think too much of our media and fear is concentrating hard on washing hands, with little science behind it for respitory viruses.
d2p 7y ago
> At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick from infecting others. I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Imagine if all those sick people wore masks (or some substitute, like a scarf over their mouth/nose). If we can agree that wearing a mask (or substitite) if you might be sick is a good idea, but you don't know if you might be sick, that seems to translate to wearing a mask (or substitute) is a good idea. > that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them. I agree it's important to reserve masks for those who need them most, but that doesn't mean we have to teach people they are not effective. We could instead teach them how "non-masks" can make very reasonable substitutes. And let's not forget that reducing the spread has a real impact on the need for healthcase workers to have them.
- robocat 7y ago
  > I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Look at the number of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases (approx 50%) there are in the two full population studies on the Princess Cruise ship, and Vò (in Italy).

robocat 7y ago

That is pretty much correct from what I’ve read. But take care to differentiate between surgical masks (only help protect others), and N95 protects both ways (protects the wearer from others, protects others from the wearer). Go to 43:20 on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3URhJx0NSw and Michael Osterholm (a very clued up epidemiologist) says: 1. Surgical masks help prevent transmission 2. N95 masks help prevent catching it Note also in that same section he says washing hands is probably a waste of time - because transmission vector is respiratory (duhhh). I think too much of our media and fear is concentrating hard on washing hands, with little science behind it for respitory viruses.

d2p 7y ago

> At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick from infecting others. I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Imagine if all those sick people wore masks (or some substitute, like a scarf over their mouth/nose). If we can agree that wearing a mask (or substitite) if you might be sick is a good idea, but you don't know if you might be sick, that seems to translate to wearing a mask (or substitute) is a good idea. > that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them. I agree it's important to reserve masks for those who need them most, but that doesn't mean we have to teach people they are not effective. We could instead teach them how "non-masks" can make very reasonable substitutes. And let's not forget that reducing the spread has a real impact on the need for healthcase workers to have them.

robocat 7y ago
> I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Look at the number of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases (approx 50%) there are in the two full population studies on the Princess Cruise ship, and Vò (in Italy).