7 ms·

The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were suc

The market for face masks is probably enormous right now but the information out there on which ones to buy is anemic. I assumed this was because masks were such a commodity that it didn't really matter which ones you bought, but this article shows otherwise. Even just among the cotton ones there is quite a difference.

techsupporter 6y ago
I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. You're right about the differences in effectiveness but 70% is still pretty good as long as many people are wearing something and not exposing their noses or wrapping the mask lovingly around their chins.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > wearing literally anything Well, no: the fleece mask broke larger droplets into many smaller ones, resulting in an increase of 10% in the number of droplets compared to the no-mask baseline. Being smaller droplets, they would also hang in the air longer.
  - PierceJoy 6y ago
    Potentially a good thing to keep in mind for the upcoming ski season if people think their fleece face coverings will be effective.
- Kiro 6y ago
  You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
  - aflag 6y ago
    I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.
    - Kiro 6y ago
      I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benefit_to_widespread_mask_use/11376476 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef... With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
      - aflag 6y ago
        > five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
      - russholmes 6y ago
        According to this research in the Lancet, masks help but not as much as physical distancing. 2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - russholmes 6y ago
      I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  Shut up you dumb fucking gullible idiot. If you’re so worried about a virus then just stay in your apartment forever you scared little bitch, it’s 100% effective. Don’t tell others what to do you fucking faggot.
makomk 6y ago
A couple of reasons for this spring to mind immediately. Firstly, governments don't want people using the most effective masks because there's barely enough of them to supply hospitals. Secondly, the push for masking has absolutely nothing to do with effectiveness. For instance, people keep pointing to things like the 1918 flu epidemic as proof we've always known masks worked, but as far as I can tell those masks were made of gauze and therefore likely as bad as or worse than the worst mask in the study. And there was an article going around pointing to this study of the effect of reducing the dose of flu virus people were exposed to as proof masks worked better than expected: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342672/ Notice how, at the part of the curve where reducing the amount of virus had the most effect, it took a tenfold reduction or so to reduce the number of people showing symptoms or testing positive by about 30%? On its face that seems kind of bad for the idea of using random non-medical face coverings with much worse filteration, but that's not how it's been spun. Also, I think a lot of this has to do with what people feel will work based on it having a good narrative attached. For example, there's this fairly widespread idea that valved masks are not OK and worse than random cotton face coverings which I think has even been enshrined as an actual legal requirement in a few places despite clearly not matching up with the test results here. Presumably this is because it feels like deliberately letting your own breath out past the filter via valves is intentionally exposing others, even though anyone who wears an ordinary non-fitted face mask can easily notice that exhalation blows out around the edge of the mask anyway - often with really annoying results for glasses wearers. A bunch of British news organisations even accused our government of telling people to wear "useless" maasks and endangering the public for showing a valved mask in their advice: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-face-coverings-masks-valve-downing-street-messaging-a9619436.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-f...
rstuart4133 6y ago
After looking at the article for a while, my take away was material aside, the fit matters a lot. They got a very different results with the same materials with different fits. I know from using one the peaked N95 has an awesome fit. I guessing the swath was pressed hard to the face, so no leaks which would explain it's good performance. The best of the cotton masks was again the peaked. Fit being important isn't good news. You can get a good idea of the material from the ad, but judging fit is hard without trying it on. The values on N95 can work both ways - allowing air to more easily pass in the in or out direction. If it's in I guess it's not protecting you so well. If it's out it's not protecting others. Out is what they tested. Most seem to be out, but I have one that's in (maybe a manufacturing fault - who knows). It's nicer to wear for long periods than out. In the context of slowing down covid, I'm guessing in is more effective.

techsupporter 6y ago

I think the broader point is one that still stands: wearing literally anything over your nose and mouth is shown, by this study, to cut droplet by at least 50%. Even the cotton varieties cut it from 70% to 90%. So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. You're right about the differences in effectiveness but 70% is still pretty good as long as many people are wearing something and not exposing their noses or wrapping the mask lovingly around their chins.

Izkata 6y ago
> wearing literally anything Well, no: the fleece mask broke larger droplets into many smaller ones, resulting in an increase of 10% in the number of droplets compared to the no-mask baseline. Being smaller droplets, they would also hang in the air longer.
- PierceJoy 6y ago
  Potentially a good thing to keep in mind for the upcoming ski season if people think their fleece face coverings will be effective.
Kiro 6y ago
You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Edit: This is one of the main reason the Scandinavian countries recommend against _all_ mask use (including N95) so not sure why I'm getting downvoted for merely saying an inefficient mask could have that problem.
- aflag 6y ago
  I've seen that idea being tossed around, but are there any sort of studies showing that the increased face touching can indeed make the virus spread more than not wearing masks? It's a geniune question, I'd like to see studies related to that. For me, it's not really obvious that more face touching (even if that happens in significant numbers across the population), causes the virus to spread more than it would have without face masks. Reason being that it seems like spread through surfaces is not as bad as through the air, so making the air cleaner seems better than making the surfaces cleaner to me.
  - Kiro 6y ago
    I've only heard what the state epidemiologists say but here's the Finnish study that the current recommendations are based on: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benefit_to_widespread_mask_use/11376476 https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_little_or_no_benef... With that said, Finland is re-evaluating face masks it as we speak so it may change.
    - aflag 6y ago
      > five of eight systematic reviews found no evidence that the use of masks would provide any benefit in controlling sources of infection or protecting healthy persons from exposure to respiratory infections Unfortunately, that news article does not contain the links to those reviews. Maybe they are part of the full report, but I can't read Finnish.
    - russholmes 6y ago
      According to this research in the Lancet, masks help but not as much as physical distancing. 2 m distance reduces risk by 10x face mask reduces risk by 6x eye protection by 5x There is some uncertainty in these figures https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - russholmes 6y ago
    I think the reason that various authorities advised against masks is political - there simply weren't enough and to direct the supply to clinical workers.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Shut up you dumb fucking gullible idiot. If you’re so worried about a virus then just stay in your apartment forever you scared little bitch, it’s 100% effective. Don’t tell others what to do you fucking faggot.

makomk 6y ago

A couple of reasons for this spring to mind immediately. Firstly, governments don't want people using the most effective masks because there's barely enough of them to supply hospitals. Secondly, the push for masking has absolutely nothing to do with effectiveness. For instance, people keep pointing to things like the 1918 flu epidemic as proof we've always known masks worked, but as far as I can tell those masks were made of gauze and therefore likely as bad as or worse than the worst mask in the study. And there was an article going around pointing to this study of the effect of reducing the dose of flu virus people were exposed to as proof masks worked better than expected: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342672/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342672/ Notice how, at the part of the curve where reducing the amount of virus had the most effect, it took a tenfold reduction or so to reduce the number of people showing symptoms or testing positive by about 30%? On its face that seems kind of bad for the idea of using random non-medical face coverings with much worse filteration, but that's not how it's been spun. Also, I think a lot of this has to do with what people feel will work based on it having a good narrative attached. For example, there's this fairly widespread idea that valved masks are not OK and worse than random cotton face coverings which I think has even been enshrined as an actual legal requirement in a few places despite clearly not matching up with the test results here. Presumably this is because it feels like deliberately letting your own breath out past the filter via valves is intentionally exposing others, even though anyone who wears an ordinary non-fitted face mask can easily notice that exhalation blows out around the edge of the mask anyway - often with really annoying results for glasses wearers. A bunch of British news organisations even accused our government of telling people to wear "useless" maasks and endangering the public for showing a valved mask in their advice: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-face-coverings-masks-valve-downing-street-messaging-a9619436.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-f...

rstuart4133 6y ago

After looking at the article for a while, my take away was material aside, the fit matters a lot. They got a very different results with the same materials with different fits. I know from using one the peaked N95 has an awesome fit. I guessing the swath was pressed hard to the face, so no leaks which would explain it's good performance. The best of the cotton masks was again the peaked. Fit being important isn't good news. You can get a good idea of the material from the ad, but judging fit is hard without trying it on. The values on N95 can work both ways - allowing air to more easily pass in the in or out direction. If it's in I guess it's not protecting you so well. If it's out it's not protecting others. Out is what they tested. Most seem to be out, but I have one that's in (maybe a manufacturing fault - who knows). It's nicer to wear for long periods than out. In the context of slowing down covid, I'm guessing in is more effective.