4 ms·
It's blindingly obvious. We've known that people with only subclinical symptoms (such as cough) spread this since very early on. People were told to cough into
by mantap 7y ago
It's blindingly obvious. We've known that people with only subclinical symptoms (such as cough) spread this since very early on. People were told to cough into their elbow. We also know that almost nobody coughs into their elbow, even some public health officials have been caught on camera at press conferences coughing into their hands[1]. A cloth mask is surely better than coughing into your hand or worse into the open air.
[1] see this video https://news.sky.com/video/coronavirus-medical-officer-coughs-while-advising-on-shaking-hands-11950219 https://news.sky.com/video/coronavirus-medical-officer-cough...
- shawnz 7y agoLots of people thought it was obvious that sodium intake caused hypertension, or cholesterol intake caused heart disease. Both ideas were since discredited. I am weary about calling anything in science or medicine "obvious", especially in a time of panic like this
- meowface 7y agoDo you not see how terrible of an analogy that is?
- shawnz 7y agoNo? The point is that there were "obvious" mechanisms for why it should be true, but then non-obvious mechanisms which ended up making it false. Without data we can't know the impact of those non-obvious mechanisms.
- meowface 7y agoYes, there is some truth to that, but there are different forms of obvious. The effects a food or drug may have on the body after being ingested are never truly obvious. The internal workings of the body of an animal are extremely, extremely complex; there are so many factors involved. This is why there's never been any sort of consensus on nutrition. Meanwhile, if someone were to say "it's obvious that wearing nitrile gloves and properly disposing of them reduces the chance of viruses coming into contact with your bare hands", true, this is not 100% obvious. There are potential failure modes here, there could be some unknown unknowns. But in general, this seems pretty obvious. We've been using gloves for these purposes for millennia. We have no reason to think they're ineffective at preventing harmful particles from touching your bare hands. The same is true of a face mask. If a virus is likely to infect you by entering your nose or mouth, then covering your nose and mouth is likely to reduce the chance of infection from the virus. This has again been known for millennia. It's the reason why Asian countries have been wearing face masks since the start of the COVID-19 news. It's why every national and global health organization is now advising that people should start wearing masks. And it's evidence that the Surgeon General of the United States very likely knowingly lied to the US public, possibly causing unnecessary deaths.
- shawnz 7y ago> "it's obvious that wearing nitrile gloves and properly disposing of them reduces the chance of viruses coming into contact with your bare hands", true, this is not 100% obvious. I think this is a little bit unfair of an analogy because the question is not really "does it reduce virus particles from coming into contact with your bare hands", the question is really "does it reduce your chances of getting/spreading the virus" which is not so straightforward. > If a virus is likely to infect you by entering your nose or mouth, then covering your nose and mouth is likely to reduce the chance of infection from the virus. That mechanism does seem obvious but what if the reduction is only a few percentage points or something? Consider how the virus particles could potentially pass right through many coverings, and they do nothing for your eyes or other bodily openings. It could be totally counteracted by, for example, having virus particles trapped in a moist space in front of your face for hours at a time. I have no idea if that's true but I'm just trying to say, there are plausible mechanisms that could negate the effectiveness of masks outside healthcare settings. > It's the reason why Asian countries have been wearing face masks since the start of the COVID-19 news. Asian countries have acquired a culture of wearing face masks based around beliefs, not data. That is not a demonstration of face masks being effective, unless you are trying to say that since implementing such a culture we've seen a reduction in viral infections there. That would indeed be a good argument for masks. And keep in mind that mask-wearing in Asian countries didn't begin with COVID-19. It has been popular since the SARS outbreak at least.
- timr 7y agoIt's not at all clear that coughing directly into a thin t-shirt stretched over your face is "better" than coughing into your elbow or hand, and there's a shortage of medical masks. Moreover, the US also doesn't have a culture of wearing medical masks -- not even a month ago, people were getting attacked on the NYC subway for wearing them. In other words, the CDC's guidelines were not totally irrational advice.
- exolymph 7y ago> It's not at all clear that coughing directly into a thin t-shirt stretched over your face is "better" than coughing into your elbow or hand Yes it is. Are you more likely to subsequently touch other things with your exterior appendages or your face?
- timr 7y agoI'm not likely to touch things with my elbow, and I put my hands in my pockets and try to avoid touching things, like most people have been doing for a while now.
- exolymph 7y agoLol that you dodged the direct question. It's obvious to everyone.
- timr 7y agoI gave you a direct answer: it's pretty easy to ensure that I don't touch things with my hands. I'm still waiting for you to provide some proof that the t-shirt stretched over your face blocks anything at all.
- exolymph 7y ago> Are you more likely to subsequently touch other things with your exterior appendages or your face? Pick one. Exterior appendages, or face?