4 ms·
From the article: "Masks don't stop you getting sick" From the article's source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655307007742 https://ww
by strken 7y ago
From the article: "Masks don't stop you getting sick"
From the article's source (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655307007742 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019665530...): "None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices"
Well, what's "adequate filter performance and facial fit"? For filter performance, they measured how good the surgical masks were at blocking tiny latex spheres that approximated an aerosol, and found that masks ranged from less than 1% penetration (best) all the way to 80% penetration (worst). For facial fit, they told subjects who "were not screened for previous use of masks or respirators" to wear masks and then sprayed an aerosolised bitter substance on them, and found all of the subjects could taste it after their first try.
The article is making the claim that masks don't stop you getting sick, based on a source that indicates some masks don't filter aerosols completely and that nobody wears masks correctly anyway. This is a bit of a stretch - their source says nothing about larger droplets, it says nothing about side effects like touching your face less, it says nothing about masks encouraging other people to socially distance, it says very little about how masks reduce the viral load that reaches you.
I don't think there's enough evidence to categorically state that masks do not stop you getting sick. I think it's irresponsible to make such a firm statement without better evidence.
- lalsdjsdlafsdk 7y agoThen why the fuck is it an "order" to wear a mask!?
- jccooper 7y agoYeah, there's science and then there's science. I'm sure they're correct about aerosol protection, but if this virus is mostly spread via respiratory droplets (as seems likely) that's an entirely different question and answer. In such a case even poor masks will be useful against exposure via casual contact. So long as you're not wearing them on your chin, as I see so often.
- Johnjonjoan 7y agoIt's such a blatant doublethink right? I feel like the masks don't work rhetoric is political maneuvering born from the fact that governments had little to no reserves of them and that health professionals desperately need them. Whilst I'm sure some seasoned bureaucrats or advisors think the (subjectively) white lie is the right thing to do; because health professionals need them more. The fact is if we all supported EVERYONE wearing masks, large scale domestic production would have to begin in every country and health care professionals would be swimming in masks. Not to mention it could play a part in reducing transmission. Masks for everyone is a win win.
- dehrmann 7y ago> ...the masks don't work rhetoric is political maneuvering born from the fact that governments had little to no reserves of them and that health professionals desperately need them. Lying to people erodes trust. When leaders then order subsequent weeks-months of lockdown, people don't trust them, ignore their orders, and protest. It's not just the masks, though. Leaders failed to lay out plans and exit criteria fast enough, weren't fast enough to address arbitrariness in their orders, and have downplayed knock-on effects.
- dehrmann 7y agoIt's hard to get science on any of this. Things like "how long does SARS-CoV2 live on x are cute," but in vitro data doesn't equate to the real risk--it's more like a worst-case bound. If you're playing with latex spheres, it might as well be a guess.
- Symmetry 7y agoWe even have some serious virologists saying they don't think fomite infection is an important factor in spread. https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185....
- dehrmann 7y agoThis brings up another thing that's under-reported: who is contracting COVID-19 and how did they get it? Other than prisons, nursing homes, and possibly meat packers, I haven't seen useful information on this. I've seen people saying "grocery store workers should get hazard pay." Should they? I don't have enough data to really say.
- jeremyw 7y agoMask advocates claim that stopping large droplets from _exiting_ your mask (not incoming) will reduce viral load. And if infected, viral load is inversely proportional to the severity of illness, infectiousness, etc. The marketing campaign to get people to wear masks may say "masks [...] stop you getting sick", but the more nuanced justification is out there. See more: https://masks4all.co/faqs-for-mask-skeptics/ https://masks4all.co/faqs-for-mask-skeptics/
- strken 7y agoThis is also the stance of the article. Whether masks protect the person wearing them is still very important, firstly for the protection itself, but secondly because some people are motivated more by self-interest than altruism. If you tell everyone that masks don't stop you getting sick, when in the balance of probability they do prevent some cases, then fewer people will wear them.
- jeremyw 7y agoActually, I think the marketing "I protect you and you protect me" is quite good. It worked where I am ~75% prior to any gov't policy changes.
- dhimes 7y agoI was chatting online with a group of people who are discussing various defogging agents to keep their glasses from fogging when they breathe using a mask. I tried very hard to explain that if the breath was escaping without going through the mask then the mask isn't able to do its job, and they shouldn't be using a defogging agent but rather trying to fit their masks better. Sometimes the "science" needs to be tailored to the audience or else it's pointless.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoThe general population (in all countries) is wearing masks that simply can't be fit that tightly.
- dhimes 7y agoI’ve seen people use tape to seal.