4 ms·
This article repeatedly mentions the main issue with masks right now, that they require widespread adoption and usage, while pretending “better masks” will some
by calmworm 6y ago
This article repeatedly mentions the main issue with masks right now, that they require widespread adoption and usage, while pretending “better masks” will somehow solve it.
- m0llusk 6y agoExactly! This article is a great demonstration of how tuned out and ivory tower much of the medical establishment is. What are the real problems with masks? Did they bother to talk to or even count mask users? From my experience masks are inconvenient to carry, put on, and take off. Wearing them is not only uncomfortable but adds minor difficulty to breathing. My work as a cleaner is exhausting and accounted for by the hour. Masks turn my work from miserable to borderline unbearable. Exactly how do masks effect temperature and breathing? No one knows or cares! I am convinced I have experienced several events of serious and dangerous hypoxia as a result of needed to wear a mask while working. Have any of these people bothered to quantify the risks of hypoxia while doing strenuous work and wearing a mask? Maybe ivory tower work doesn't get them breathing hard so it is okay? Being slightly off with their marketing game might be excusable, but one would expect medical professionals to have some nonzero level of bedside manner and actual interest in not doing harm.
- calmworm 6y agoApologies, but I’m having trouble with your response. It doesn’t seem to be related to the article or my comment. This article is all about creating “better” masks for general public usage in social situations. It seems to say that even with, or because of, those not wearing masks, the mask-wearers need more effective masks.
- jakeogh 6y agoPeople must make their own healthcare decisions. Telling others what to do because one does not want to wear an actually effective mask is rather slick conditioning towards a forced medical procedure. I think you understood the comment you are replying to. US Experiment on infants withholding affection: https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213 https://stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infan... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Baby+development+without+affection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Baby+development+witho...
- m0llusk 6y agoI am saying that this "better" metric you refer to is badly defined in this article. A mask that allowed for easier breathing would potentially be used more frequently and reliably and would do less damage to the wearer. That seems better to me. The ease of carrying, wearing, and also cleaning are other important contributing factors. You are agreeing with the writer that the only contributing factor to "better" is the capacity to lower infection rates when correctly worn. That isn't merely wrong, it is dangerously and offensively stupid.
- calmworm 6y agoThank you for clarifying your point. They touched on multiple points of "better" in this article... one of which is "Comfort", "For example, Stanford researchers are experimenting with wearable devices that pump oxygen into masks to make them more breathable."