5 ms·

> Wu explains to the French doctor his theory that plague is pneumonic and airborne (...) And the French guy humiliates him . . . and in very racist terms says,

> Wu explains to the French doctor his theory that plague is pneumonic and airborne (...) And the French guy humiliates him . . . and in very racist terms says, ‘What can we expect from a Chinaman?’ And to prove this point, [the French doctor] goes and attends the sick in a plague hospital without wearing Wu’s mask, and he dies in two days with plague. Maybe we're like this French doctor, and that this is still the reason why we don't wear masks in the west? A widespread practice in several East Asian countries - but what do they know?

gridlockd 7y ago
We also don't consume ground up rhino horn to cure impotence, but the Chinese do - what do they know? Unless somebody coughs right in your face, a surgical mask will do nothing to protect you - but even then your eyes are still exposed. There are still valid rationalizations: Personally, it may be a superstition, but it nevertheless makes you feel better. Externally, it will lower the risk of you infecting others. There actually is some social pressure to wear a mask. The downside is obvious: Masks are uncomfortable and you'll be the odd one out unless the majority already wears them. You need to reach critical mass first, but when the only reason to wear a mask is to protect others from a disease, you'd raise suspicion: If you're sick why are you outside?
- stareatgoats 7y ago
  > Unless somebody coughs right in your face, a surgical mask will do nothing to protect you - but even then your eyes are still exposed You may want to fact-check that statement more. Here is a list of mask research that could help: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/preview https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...
  - krlx 7y ago
    Whoa thanks for this document. Definetly something to keep, ready to share every time I hear the now usual "Masks are only if you have symptoms".
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > You may want to fact-check that statement more. Here is a list of mask research that could help... I did. Most of the data is on medical workers, pitting N95 against surgical masks. We already know that even N95 masks, which are unlikely to have good sealing over a longer period of time, are not very effective in protecting against viruses. Obviously, there is no data on medical workers wearing no masks. There is almost no data on the general population wearing masks (or not), and the data that exists doesn't seem to provide a strong argument either. Please correct me if I overlooked something. Here's some quotes that don't exactly inspire confidence: "Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational riskfrom close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients. However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory disease" from "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks" "Home made masks, and to a lesser degree surgical masks, are unlikely to confer much protection against transmission of small particles like droplet nuclei, but as the reproduction number of influenza may not be very high [14] a small reduction in transmissibility of the virus may be sufficient for reducing the reproduction number to a value smaller than 1 and thus extinguishing the epidemic." from "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population" "Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively" from "Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial." "Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection." from "A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers"
  - linguaz 7y ago
    Thanks -- looks like a really useful document. Is there some way to download / save it locally? I'm not seeing a menu within the Google doc, so all I can try is the browser function (Firefox on Linux "Save Page As... Web Page complete"), but that doesn't really do it. Maybe the author did a "Disable options to download, print, and copy for commenters and viewers" [1]? [1] Limit how your files are shared https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494893 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494893
    - davepmichael 7y ago
      Menu > make available offline. Should now ahownin "offline" in your drive.
- laughingman2 7y ago
  Masks can protect other people primarily. If you're sick and don't know (asymtomatic), developing symptoms only now, if you're sick and don't have any option but to go out etc. And your point on masks not protecting incoming droplets is wrong. When people sneeze, droplets can go more than 5 feet. Masks reduce exposure to such droplets. https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all-wear-masks-there-is-new-scientific-rationale-280e08ceee71 https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all... Research is on going on how immunity responds to decreased exposure to viral loads. And masks can remind people to not touch faces and remind others that we're in a pandemic.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Masks can protect other people primarily. If you're sick and don't know (asymtomatic), developing symptoms only now, if you're sick and don't have any option but to go out etc. I'm aware of that, nevertheless what I say is true. Wearing a mask raises suspicion of you being sick. The irrationality of that doesn't matter. > When people sneeze, droplets can go more than 5 feet. Masks reduce exposure to such droplets. You're still going get them in your eyes, you're still going to breathe them in, you're still going to get infected. Why aren't people recommending to wear glasses or better yet, goggles? Why not a whole ski outfit? > https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all.. https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all.... Literally nothing in there says any more than "won't harm at worst, may help at best". No science, whatsoever, just speculation. Let me then speculate how it might actually harm: You're carrying around a net to catch all those aerosols around you, then you'll be breathing against it constantly. You bring it home, at which point it is essentially a bio-hazard of which you need to dispose of properly, which you won't, because you're an average person. Do I have any evidence on that hypothetical risk? No, but neither does the other side that claims it doesn't do any harm. > And masks can remind people to not touch faces... Yes, I omitted that. >... and remind others that we're in a pandemic. ...as if people needed to be reminded about that. Soon enough, they'll have heard enough about it and start ignoring it again.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      How is it you could be provided with such clear evidence, yet you still insist on being absolutely correct? What is your explanation for the graph on this page, which clearly shows that wearing a mask has massive effect on the spread of the disease? https://www.maskssavelives.org https://www.maskssavelives.org
- throw_44564 7y ago
  Saying, “Chinese eat rhino horn,” would be similar to saying Americans believe vaccines cause autism. Sure, there is a smalll minority of uneducated people that believe that. Most do not.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > Sure, there is a smalll minority of uneducated people that believe that. Most do not. I don't think so. Rhino horn is just a stand-in for TCM that everyone is aware of. Most Chinese believe in TCM, even doctors, who tend to practice a mishmash of TCM and western medicine. It's plausible that most Chinese men believe that Rhino horn could cure their impotence - if only they could afford it. EDIT: Face the facts, downvoters: "We interviewed 15 TCM practitioners in Hong Kong, investigating their familiarity with rhino horn, prescription experiences, and perspectives toward its use and trade. All interviewees believe that rhino horn possesses medicinal properties, despite general unfamiliarity with its chemical composition or any active ingredient." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940082918787428 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19400829187874... Note that I never claimed that a majority of TCM adherents support poaching. That is not the case.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      That statement doesn't prove what you think it proves. The study isn't designed to determine the percentage of TCM practitioners who believe in/use rhino horn. It is a study of TCM practitioners who believe in/use rhino horn to determine how they use it. That 15/15 survey participants believe in rhino horn is part of the study's design, not one of its conclusions. I have no idea how many TCM practitioners or patients in China believe in the efficacy of rhino horn, and neither do you. I do know, having occasionally visited Australian TCM practitioners (who trained in China) for acupuncture and related treatments, that none of them have any belief in animal-based remedies, endangered or otherwise.
      - 7y ago
- ulfw 7y ago
  I am shocked and saddened to read such dumb racist thing on Hackernews. Must be the times we live in. I could give you equally many examples of dumb things we eat in the west, but I won't join into your racist game.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    Excuse me, could you please not just throw allegations of racism around? There is nothing racist about referencing the fact that the Chinese, and not just some small minority of them, believe in and practice TCM - including the application of Rhino horn[1]. The statement I made is as logically (un)sound as the statement I am lampooning. The practices of a population don't imply knowledge or rationality. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/10/wildlife-watch-news-china-rhino-tiger-legal/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/10/wildlife-...
rswail 7y ago
The reason we don't is because we weren't dramatically affected by SARS. SARS in the early '00s was primarily a problem in Asia. Japanese people also have an etiquette of wearing a mask when ill to avoid spreading disease. Both of these habits are widespread in Asia because of this.
- skocznymroczny 7y ago
  Also in many Asian cities masks are worn due to air pollution.
  - JCharante 7y ago
    and even in clean areas some people still wear them because they help keep your face warm when it's cold.
    - Markoff 7y ago
      or it's just common courtesy trying to not infect others with your illness like in Japan
    - rootsudo 7y ago
      Or, maybe because people go from clean to dirty areas.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I picked up this habit because of widespread pollution in New Delhi
- gumby 7y ago
  Mask culture in Southeast Asia (to stop disease transmission) predated SARS for decades.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shostack 7y ago
If we have a high percentage of asymptomatic carriers, and masks reduce transmission substantially, it would be great to see a cultural change in Western countries to make them commonplace whenever you are in public. If the fashion industry gets on board to make them look nice and production ramps up to make them widespread and affordable, we may actually see mass societal change around this.

gridlockd 7y ago

We also don't consume ground up rhino horn to cure impotence, but the Chinese do - what do they know? Unless somebody coughs right in your face, a surgical mask will do nothing to protect you - but even then your eyes are still exposed. There are still valid rationalizations: Personally, it may be a superstition, but it nevertheless makes you feel better. Externally, it will lower the risk of you infecting others. There actually is some social pressure to wear a mask. The downside is obvious: Masks are uncomfortable and you'll be the odd one out unless the majority already wears them. You need to reach critical mass first, but when the only reason to wear a mask is to protect others from a disease, you'd raise suspicion: If you're sick why are you outside?

stareatgoats 7y ago
> Unless somebody coughs right in your face, a surgical mask will do nothing to protect you - but even then your eyes are still exposed You may want to fact-check that statement more. Here is a list of mask research that could help: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4pt4oFDBhsC_jpblXpNtQ/preview https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...
- krlx 7y ago
  Whoa thanks for this document. Definetly something to keep, ready to share every time I hear the now usual "Masks are only if you have symptoms".
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > You may want to fact-check that statement more. Here is a list of mask research that could help... I did. Most of the data is on medical workers, pitting N95 against surgical masks. We already know that even N95 masks, which are unlikely to have good sealing over a longer period of time, are not very effective in protecting against viruses. Obviously, there is no data on medical workers wearing no masks. There is almost no data on the general population wearing masks (or not), and the data that exists doesn't seem to provide a strong argument either. Please correct me if I overlooked something. Here's some quotes that don't exactly inspire confidence: "Improvised homemade face masks may be used to help protect those who could potentially, for example, be at occupational riskfrom close or frequent contact with symptomatic patients. However, these masks would provide the wearers little protection from microorganisms from others persons who are infected with respiratory disease" from "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks" "Home made masks, and to a lesser degree surgical masks, are unlikely to confer much protection against transmission of small particles like droplet nuclei, but as the reproduction number of influenza may not be very high [14] a small reduction in transmissibility of the virus may be sufficient for reducing the reproduction number to a value smaller than 1 and thus extinguishing the epidemic." from "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population" "Neither face mask use and hand hygiene nor face mask use alone was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ILI cumulatively" from "Mask use, hand hygiene, and seasonal influenza-like illness among young adults: a randomized intervention trial." "Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection." from "A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers"
- linguaz 7y ago
  Thanks -- looks like a really useful document. Is there some way to download / save it locally? I'm not seeing a menu within the Google doc, so all I can try is the browser function (Firefox on Linux "Save Page As... Web Page complete"), but that doesn't really do it. Maybe the author did a "Disable options to download, print, and copy for commenters and viewers" [1]? [1] Limit how your files are shared https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494893 https://support.google.com/docs/answer/2494893
  - davepmichael 7y ago
    Menu > make available offline. Should now ahownin "offline" in your drive.
laughingman2 7y ago
Masks can protect other people primarily. If you're sick and don't know (asymtomatic), developing symptoms only now, if you're sick and don't have any option but to go out etc. And your point on masks not protecting incoming droplets is wrong. When people sneeze, droplets can go more than 5 feet. Masks reduce exposure to such droplets. https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all-wear-masks-there-is-new-scientific-rationale-280e08ceee71 https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all... Research is on going on how immunity responds to decreased exposure to viral loads. And masks can remind people to not touch faces and remind others that we're in a pandemic.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Masks can protect other people primarily. If you're sick and don't know (asymtomatic), developing symptoms only now, if you're sick and don't have any option but to go out etc. I'm aware of that, nevertheless what I say is true. Wearing a mask raises suspicion of you being sick. The irrationality of that doesn't matter. > When people sneeze, droplets can go more than 5 feet. Masks reduce exposure to such droplets. You're still going get them in your eyes, you're still going to breathe them in, you're still going to get infected. Why aren't people recommending to wear glasses or better yet, goggles? Why not a whole ski outfit? > https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all.. https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all.... Literally nothing in there says any more than "won't harm at worst, may help at best". No science, whatsoever, just speculation. Let me then speculate how it might actually harm: You're carrying around a net to catch all those aerosols around you, then you'll be breathing against it constantly. You bring it home, at which point it is essentially a bio-hazard of which you need to dispose of properly, which you won't, because you're an average person. Do I have any evidence on that hypothetical risk? No, but neither does the other side that claims it doesn't do any harm. > And masks can remind people to not touch faces... Yes, I omitted that. >... and remind others that we're in a pandemic. ...as if people needed to be reminded about that. Soon enough, they'll have heard enough about it and start ignoring it again.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    How is it you could be provided with such clear evidence, yet you still insist on being absolutely correct? What is your explanation for the graph on this page, which clearly shows that wearing a mask has massive effect on the spread of the disease? https://www.maskssavelives.org https://www.maskssavelives.org
throw_44564 7y ago
Saying, “Chinese eat rhino horn,” would be similar to saying Americans believe vaccines cause autism. Sure, there is a smalll minority of uneducated people that believe that. Most do not.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Sure, there is a smalll minority of uneducated people that believe that. Most do not. I don't think so. Rhino horn is just a stand-in for TCM that everyone is aware of. Most Chinese believe in TCM, even doctors, who tend to practice a mishmash of TCM and western medicine. It's plausible that most Chinese men believe that Rhino horn could cure their impotence - if only they could afford it. EDIT: Face the facts, downvoters: "We interviewed 15 TCM practitioners in Hong Kong, investigating their familiarity with rhino horn, prescription experiences, and perspectives toward its use and trade. All interviewees believe that rhino horn possesses medicinal properties, despite general unfamiliarity with its chemical composition or any active ingredient." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1940082918787428 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19400829187874... Note that I never claimed that a majority of TCM adherents support poaching. That is not the case.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    That statement doesn't prove what you think it proves. The study isn't designed to determine the percentage of TCM practitioners who believe in/use rhino horn. It is a study of TCM practitioners who believe in/use rhino horn to determine how they use it. That 15/15 survey participants believe in rhino horn is part of the study's design, not one of its conclusions. I have no idea how many TCM practitioners or patients in China believe in the efficacy of rhino horn, and neither do you. I do know, having occasionally visited Australian TCM practitioners (who trained in China) for acupuncture and related treatments, that none of them have any belief in animal-based remedies, endangered or otherwise.
    - 7y ago
ulfw 7y ago
I am shocked and saddened to read such dumb racist thing on Hackernews. Must be the times we live in. I could give you equally many examples of dumb things we eat in the west, but I won't join into your racist game.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Excuse me, could you please not just throw allegations of racism around? There is nothing racist about referencing the fact that the Chinese, and not just some small minority of them, believe in and practice TCM - including the application of Rhino horn[1]. The statement I made is as logically (un)sound as the statement I am lampooning. The practices of a population don't imply knowledge or rationality. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/10/wildlife-watch-news-china-rhino-tiger-legal/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/10/wildlife-...

rswail 7y ago

The reason we don't is because we weren't dramatically affected by SARS. SARS in the early '00s was primarily a problem in Asia. Japanese people also have an etiquette of wearing a mask when ill to avoid spreading disease. Both of these habits are widespread in Asia because of this.

skocznymroczny 7y ago
Also in many Asian cities masks are worn due to air pollution.
- JCharante 7y ago
  and even in clean areas some people still wear them because they help keep your face warm when it's cold.
  - Markoff 7y ago
    or it's just common courtesy trying to not infect others with your illness like in Japan
  - rootsudo 7y ago
    Or, maybe because people go from clean to dirty areas.
puranjay 7y ago
I picked up this habit because of widespread pollution in New Delhi
gumby 7y ago
Mask culture in Southeast Asia (to stop disease transmission) predated SARS for decades.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

shostack 7y ago

If we have a high percentage of asymptomatic carriers, and masks reduce transmission substantially, it would be great to see a cultural change in Western countries to make them commonplace whenever you are in public. If the fashion industry gets on board to make them look nice and production ramps up to make them widespread and affordable, we may actually see mass societal change around this.