6 ms·

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 Scandinavia

by 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.
  - throw_away 6y ago
    Which is damning in that they treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth and were also so unimaginative that they did not consider alternative face coverings.
    - russholmes 6y ago
      The government communication in the UK has been lamentable. Confusing, inconsistent and patronising. On the other hand, we had idiots who stripped the supermarket shelves of toilet rolls and canned tomatoes for months despite being implored not to do so. If they had gone after the masks...
      - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
        Yes we should not have taken masks that would go to the NHS but don't forget those masks should have been in government stockpiles well out of reach. How can we blame and punish the publics self control (or lack of it) when it's a government failure that caused the issue. Had we all bought masks and the state made them instead of redundant hospitals perhaps we would be in a much better place (less NHS casualties and physical/mental suffering). All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      There is now, and was then, plenty of evidence to suppose that enough people would not handle the truth responsibly, and would panic-buy masks rather than adopt alternatives.
      - xapata 6y ago
- lol2143651 6y ago
  Results > The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Conclusions > This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
  - bitcurious 6y ago
    To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.
    - lol2143651 6y ago
      Yes cloth masks plausibly increased infection risk. And many people today are wearing cloth masks because local mandates require them to. That really should call into question the efficacy of most mask public policy. It is poorly guided and poorly supported by evidence. There isn't good science to support untrained people wearing masks throughout the day is providing a public health benefit.
lm28469 6y ago
I find it hard to believe that any experiments would back up that fact. Do people put their fingers in their eyes/nose/mouth when adjusting their masks ? Surely having everyone wear a mask is more efficient than banning masks because a small fraction of mask wearers would catch covid when readjusting their masks.
- Kiro 6y ago
  I don't find it hard to believe at all. I see people fidget with their masks all the time. Here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing: > There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdf https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...
  - lm28469 6y ago
    I don't doubt some people could self contaminate, I just highly doubt that the risk of self contamination is anywhere close to the risk of regular contamination due to not wearing a mask. The answer to "improper removal of the face mask" is "proper removal of the face mask" not "tell people not to wear masks"
dragontamer 6y ago
> You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Keep hand sanitizer in your pocket. Whenever you touch the mask, sanitize your hands. Both before you touch (in case you touched a COVID19 infected surface, you don't want to add COVID19 to the mask), and after you touch (in case your mask prevented COVID19 from entering your lungs, you don't want to contaminate other things anymore) Problem solved. At my work, there's hand-sanitizer everywhere now. I don't even need to reach into my pockets anymore. Or #2: don't touch your mask. Ever. That's how doctors/nurses do it. The hand-sanitizer crutch is what I do because I'm not as good as a doctor/nurse with my discipline. But I'm training myself to never touch the mask.
- Kiro 6y ago
  Yes, of course but that's the point. That people are unable follow correct mask usage and get sloppy, especially over time.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    But why do you think that? The more you practice something, the better you get at it. Assuming people to be 100% noobs at masks for months is a bit pessimistic. It's easier today to use hand sanitizer with masks than months ago. In my experience anyway.
    - Kiro 6y ago
      Because it's what the state epidemiologists of the Nordic countries are saying, and why they recommend against mask usage. I'm all for masks btw. All I said was that inefficient masks could be counterproductive due to that reason but apparently even that innocent suggestion is heresy here.
      - pmachinery 6y ago
        It's not heresy, it's just a banality that has been stated countless times before. Not washing your hands properly can be counterproductive. Not being socially distant enough can be counterproductive. If you're not even arguing against masks, what is your point?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mdorazio 6y ago
You're getting downvoted because you provided zero evidence to backup a claim that seems pretty absurd. Touching your mask to adjust it is not the same as touching your nose, mouth, or eyes directly. Pretty much every reputable recommendation says to wash your hands after removing your mask, which avoids the contamination problem pretty well. And to your point on Scandinavian countries, where are you getting that information? Here's Norway mandating that travelers from "red" countries wear a face mask until they get home [1] and planning to backpedal on their lax mask policies [2]. Here's Denmark backpedalling on their original mask policy [3]. Here's Iceland updating their policy because they also realized no face masks is a bad idea [4]. Basically, Scandinavian countries now recognize that their original policies were not that great. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-clamps-down-as-coronavirus-cases-rise-face-masks-a-possibility/#4a95c6b514a5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-cl... [2] https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce-face-mask-guidelines-heres-what-to-look-out-for https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce... [3] https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-guidelines-now-advised-on-busy-public-transport https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-g... [4] https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_use_face_masks_in_iceland/ https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_u...
- Kiro 6y ago
  Thanks. I didn't know that they've started to backpedal. As for sources I had no idea it was such a controversial topic and something I thought was obvious (again, my point was just that an inefficient mask could be counterproductive) but here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing: > There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdf https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...

by Kiro 6y ago

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.
- throw_away 6y ago
  Which is damning in that they treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth and were also so unimaginative that they did not consider alternative face coverings.
  - russholmes 6y ago
    The government communication in the UK has been lamentable. Confusing, inconsistent and patronising. On the other hand, we had idiots who stripped the supermarket shelves of toilet rolls and canned tomatoes for months despite being implored not to do so. If they had gone after the masks...
    - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
      Yes we should not have taken masks that would go to the NHS but don't forget those masks should have been in government stockpiles well out of reach. How can we blame and punish the publics self control (or lack of it) when it's a government failure that caused the issue. Had we all bought masks and the state made them instead of redundant hospitals perhaps we would be in a much better place (less NHS casualties and physical/mental suffering). All in all it just doesn't sit right with me to justify the government's decision without mentioning they were the ones that put us in the position where it had to be made.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    There is now, and was then, plenty of evidence to suppose that enough people would not handle the truth responsibly, and would panic-buy masks rather than adopt alternatives.
    - xapata 6y ago
lol2143651 6y ago
Results > The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Conclusions > This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
- bitcurious 6y ago
  To be clear, this compared cloth vs. medical masks. There was no “unmasked” arm. So the caution was of the “given the choice, choose medical masks.” Also this measures auto-protective properties of mask wearing, not preventing spread to others.
  - lol2143651 6y ago
    Yes cloth masks plausibly increased infection risk. And many people today are wearing cloth masks because local mandates require them to. That really should call into question the efficacy of most mask public policy. It is poorly guided and poorly supported by evidence. There isn't good science to support untrained people wearing masks throughout the day is providing a public health benefit.

lm28469 6y ago

I find it hard to believe that any experiments would back up that fact. Do people put their fingers in their eyes/nose/mouth when adjusting their masks ? Surely having everyone wear a mask is more efficient than banning masks because a small fraction of mask wearers would catch covid when readjusting their masks.

Kiro 6y ago
I don't find it hard to believe at all. I see people fidget with their masks all the time. Here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing: > There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdf https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...
- lm28469 6y ago
  I don't doubt some people could self contaminate, I just highly doubt that the risk of self contamination is anywhere close to the risk of regular contamination due to not wearing a mask. The answer to "improper removal of the face mask" is "proper removal of the face mask" not "tell people not to wear masks"

dragontamer 6y ago

> You touch your face more when adjusting the mask so if it's not efficient enough it may be a net negative. Keep hand sanitizer in your pocket. Whenever you touch the mask, sanitize your hands. Both before you touch (in case you touched a COVID19 infected surface, you don't want to add COVID19 to the mask), and after you touch (in case your mask prevented COVID19 from entering your lungs, you don't want to contaminate other things anymore) Problem solved. At my work, there's hand-sanitizer everywhere now. I don't even need to reach into my pockets anymore. Or #2: don't touch your mask. Ever. That's how doctors/nurses do it. The hand-sanitizer crutch is what I do because I'm not as good as a doctor/nurse with my discipline. But I'm training myself to never touch the mask.

Kiro 6y ago
Yes, of course but that's the point. That people are unable follow correct mask usage and get sloppy, especially over time.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  But why do you think that? The more you practice something, the better you get at it. Assuming people to be 100% noobs at masks for months is a bit pessimistic. It's easier today to use hand sanitizer with masks than months ago. In my experience anyway.
  - Kiro 6y ago
    Because it's what the state epidemiologists of the Nordic countries are saying, and why they recommend against mask usage. I'm all for masks btw. All I said was that inefficient masks could be counterproductive due to that reason but apparently even that innocent suggestion is heresy here.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      It's not heresy, it's just a banality that has been stated countless times before. Not washing your hands properly can be counterproductive. Not being socially distant enough can be counterproductive. If you're not even arguing against masks, what is your point?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mdorazio 6y ago

You're getting downvoted because you provided zero evidence to backup a claim that seems pretty absurd. Touching your mask to adjust it is not the same as touching your nose, mouth, or eyes directly. Pretty much every reputable recommendation says to wash your hands after removing your mask, which avoids the contamination problem pretty well. And to your point on Scandinavian countries, where are you getting that information? Here's Norway mandating that travelers from "red" countries wear a face mask until they get home [1] and planning to backpedal on their lax mask policies [2]. Here's Denmark backpedalling on their original mask policy [3]. Here's Iceland updating their policy because they also realized no face masks is a bad idea [4]. Basically, Scandinavian countries now recognize that their original policies were not that great. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-clamps-down-as-coronavirus-cases-rise-face-masks-a-possibility/#4a95c6b514a5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/08/07/norway-cl... [2] https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce-face-mask-guidelines-heres-what-to-look-out-for https://www.thelocal.no/20200806/norway-expected-to-announce... [3] https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-guidelines-now-advised-on-busy-public-transport https://www.thelocal.dk/20200731/denmark-changes-face-mask-g... [4] https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_use_face_masks_in_iceland/ https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/07/31/when_to_u...

Kiro 6y ago
Thanks. I didn't know that they've started to backpedal. As for sources I had no idea it was such a controversial topic and something I thought was obvious (again, my point was just that an inefficient mask could be counterproductive) but here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing: > There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-face-masks-community.pdf https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COV...