2 ms·

> There isn't a good study on it. Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve? > But you may also touch your face more

> There isn't a good study on it. Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve? > But you may also touch your face more and in more dangerous ways when you're wearing a mask. This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose. > If people feel safe b/c they're wearing a mask, that's also self-defeating. Even if it makes them safer? I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them?

MengerSponge 7y ago
> Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve? Are there countries that are effectively flattening the curve without using masks? > This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose. It either gets in because you touch those places, or because you breathed in an aerosolized form through those places. (I'm assuming you breathe through your face) If a mask causes you to to aerosolize more, or contaminate your hands, then it isn't making you as safe as you thought. > Even if it makes them safer? Again, what's the evidence for this? A DOI would be sufficient. > I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them? We don't know if masks help regular people. Normal people haven't been fitted or trained, and that means they are overwhelmingly likely to wear them incorrectly. Again, we're back to moral hazard, only worse, because you aren't as protected as you thought. Bad protection can be worse than no protection, because it leads to a net increase in risk. For example (all numbers are made up) if you go out twice as often once you've got a mask, but the mask only reduces your risk of exposure by 40%, then yes, the mask has a protective effect, but you wearing the mask leads to a net increase in risk. You would have been better off not wearing the mask, and behaving more cautiously.

MengerSponge 7y ago

> Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve? Are there countries that are effectively flattening the curve without using masks? > This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose. It either gets in because you touch those places, or because you breathed in an aerosolized form through those places. (I'm assuming you breathe through your face) If a mask causes you to to aerosolize more, or contaminate your hands, then it isn't making you as safe as you thought. > Even if it makes them safer? Again, what's the evidence for this? A DOI would be sufficient. > I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them? We don't know if masks help regular people. Normal people haven't been fitted or trained, and that means they are overwhelmingly likely to wear them incorrectly. Again, we're back to moral hazard, only worse, because you aren't as protected as you thought. Bad protection can be worse than no protection, because it leads to a net increase in risk. For example (all numbers are made up) if you go out twice as often once you've got a mask, but the mask only reduces your risk of exposure by 40%, then yes, the mask has a protective effect, but you wearing the mask leads to a net increase in risk. You would have been better off not wearing the mask, and behaving more cautiously.