4 ms·

> The choice is not between "completely useless" and "100% effective". That is false dichotomy. Things like masks can be 70% effective which is already making s

by DanBC 7y ago

> The choice is not between "completely useless" and "100% effective". That is false dichotomy. Things like masks can be 70% effective which is already making situation better, although not perfect. Sure. Masks have a plausible mechanism of action. Now show me using good evidence that masks i) don't increase risk and ii) decrease risk. At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk. Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated. > the washing hands and keeping distance is stuff you are supposed to whether you wear mask or not The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.

jmchuster 7y ago
Is the argument you're making that we're trying to compare: 1) masks decrease the spread of disease by decreasing your germy breath from spreading and by decreasing you from breathing someone else's germy breath 2) masks increase the spread of disease by causing you to touch your mask with your germy hand, which increases the chance that germs can spread from your hand to your mouth? and that the benefits of (1) do not outweigh the downsides of (2)? I think that could be easily proven by showing that it's very unlikely to spread germs through the air but very likely to spread germs via touch.
- oblio 7y ago
  For 2. you'd either be contaminated directly from those particles landing on your face or by you touching your face directly, anyway, so I'd consider 2. to not be a strong argument against masks, anyway.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  2) Being related to specific mask wearing seems implausible to me. One of the fun highlights of this disease has been the official advice to not touch your face, followed immediately by the realization that we all touch our faces a lot. The idea that masks specifically cause you to touch your face more than we already are doesn’t pass the sniff test.
  - paulirwin 7y ago
    Also, if you are having to touch your face a lot while wearing a mask, you have the wrong mask. I wear one to the grocery store and after an initial adjustment I don't usually have to touch it again.
watwut 7y ago
> At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk. It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.) > Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated. Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable. > The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work. You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus). When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 7y ago
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated. Which is part of why the anti-mask narrative has been so harmful. Recommended mask wearing should have started back in early March so that everyone could gain experience before the virus was so widespread - knowing how to adjust their mask so it was comfortable, becoming used to it and not fidgeting, and learning how to incorporate mask donning/doffing into their overall hygiene procedures. It also would have been nice to get data on the growth of cases with mask usage but without shutdown. Now we're left with the decision of whether we're ready for cases to start growing at some unknown faster rate.
ubu7737 7y ago
Scott Alexander just posted a nice piece about this kind of thinking the other day. There's never been a risk-controlled trial to determine whether parachutes actually lead to better outcomes when jumping from aircraft, because that would require half the test subjects to jump without parachutes. Saying that "the only point of wearing masks" is to get people back to work is to ignore your own pig-headed insistence that there's no hard evidence masks are really beneficial. I think you have some sort of half-baked agenda in mind.

by DanBC 7y ago

jmchuster 7y ago

Is the argument you're making that we're trying to compare: 1) masks decrease the spread of disease by decreasing your germy breath from spreading and by decreasing you from breathing someone else's germy breath 2) masks increase the spread of disease by causing you to touch your mask with your germy hand, which increases the chance that germs can spread from your hand to your mouth? and that the benefits of (1) do not outweigh the downsides of (2)? I think that could be easily proven by showing that it's very unlikely to spread germs through the air but very likely to spread germs via touch.

oblio 7y ago
For 2. you'd either be contaminated directly from those particles landing on your face or by you touching your face directly, anyway, so I'd consider 2. to not be a strong argument against masks, anyway.
ashtonkem 7y ago
2) Being related to specific mask wearing seems implausible to me. One of the fun highlights of this disease has been the official advice to not touch your face, followed immediately by the realization that we all touch our faces a lot. The idea that masks specifically cause you to touch your face more than we already are doesn’t pass the sniff test.
- paulirwin 7y ago
  Also, if you are having to touch your face a lot while wearing a mask, you have the wrong mask. I wear one to the grocery store and after an initial adjustment I don't usually have to touch it again.

watwut 7y ago

> At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk. It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.) > Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated. Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable. > The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work. You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus). When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 7y ago

> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated. Which is part of why the anti-mask narrative has been so harmful. Recommended mask wearing should have started back in early March so that everyone could gain experience before the virus was so widespread - knowing how to adjust their mask so it was comfortable, becoming used to it and not fidgeting, and learning how to incorporate mask donning/doffing into their overall hygiene procedures. It also would have been nice to get data on the growth of cases with mask usage but without shutdown. Now we're left with the decision of whether we're ready for cases to start growing at some unknown faster rate.

ubu7737 7y ago

Scott Alexander just posted a nice piece about this kind of thinking the other day. There's never been a risk-controlled trial to determine whether parachutes actually lead to better outcomes when jumping from aircraft, because that would require half the test subjects to jump without parachutes. Saying that "the only point of wearing masks" is to get people back to work is to ignore your own pig-headed insistence that there's no hard evidence masks are really beneficial. I think you have some sort of half-baked agenda in mind.