5 ms·

Can wearing or not wearing a mask to protect oneself from covid-19 be regarded as an example of natural selection at work? Where mask wearers are most adapted t

Can wearing or not wearing a mask to protect oneself from covid-19 be regarded as an example of natural selection at work? Where mask wearers are most adapted to survival in their environment and non-mask wearers are not?

hervature 6y ago
Not if it doesn't affect the reproductive population
- barbecue_sauce 6y ago
  I'm fairly certain he meant "natural selection" in an analogous way, where those "selected" are the population that doesn't contract the virus.
  - hervature 6y ago
    Natural selection is a very specific natural process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
  - boyobo 6y ago
    Why call it 'natural selection' then. That's just 'selection'.
cookingrobot 6y ago
Unless non-mask wearers are seen as more attractive and so have more offspring. Too soon to know.
- misanthropian00 6y ago
  I have noticed that pretty girls seem to remove their masks more often. I think they miss being admired.
booleandilemma 6y ago
Not as much as voting for Trump or being a programmer.
johannes1234321 6y ago
The mortality braze is high among elders who likely had their children already or won't get any. Younger people suffer from other conditions primarily.
ketamine__ 6y ago
Masks aren't evidence based medicine. There isn't enough research. There are no randomized trials on cloth masks that are running. If evidence based medicine isn't an advantage then it's down to luck?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Both theory and empirical evidence. Mask wearing at least has the former: catching your own aerosols so you don't get other people sick so easily. The best is remedies that have both. But don't think evidence without good theory is fine. I'm not sure it's even that much better than theory without good evidence.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    That doesn't consider the possibly of a significant portion of the population infecting themselves. Remember, most people do not have the training to make a proper mask and use it correctly. That's the reason we need randomized trials. How do masks work outside of the lab? Also, it isn't accepted science that Covid-19 infects through aerosols.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Here's some evidence for the proposition that masks mitigate droplet-based respiratory transmission to varying degrees: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sci...
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Isn't containing coughs and sneezes (along with hand washing, etc) one of the most fundemental parts of our understanding of how to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The NHS has had the "catch it, bin it, kill it" motto for years as a way to prevent flu / common cold. There may not be studies specifically into covid-19 on this topic. But we do know that this is one of the primary spread vectors for basically every other similar respiritory disease. It's worth studying covid specifically just to be sure, but it would be bizarre if covid was different in this respect. And IMO it's completely wrong to say we have no evidence tht masks work.
fancyfredbot 6y ago
Mask wearing seems unlikely to be genetic. If it was genetic, there might be slight evolutionary pressure favouring those genes. I think the pressure would be slight as people of reproductive age are very likely to recover from the virus.
- hatsunearu 6y ago
  Doesn't have to be genetic, it can also be memetic.
- discordance 6y ago
  Not sure about that. There are known genetic influences for risk aversion. If risk averse folks wear masks, and suffer less/survive more, then this potentially could be an evolutionary mechanism.
  - fancyfredbot 6y ago
    Yes, but risk aversion has implications on things other than mask wearing. It's pretty unclear that risk aversion will be selected for because of the pandemic. The least risk averse are probably more likely to find a partner this year for example. Plausibly risk aversion might even be selected against!
beervirus 6y ago
Covid mostly is not killing people of reproductive age. So mostly no. Anti-maskers are killing their parents, not themselves.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  And people with vitamin D deficiency, regardless of age.
thu2111 6y ago
Mask mandates were mostly introduced after the first wave of deaths. And there's apparently no second wave in most places, even when the tests indicate a second wave of positive RT-PCRs. So - no. Mask wearers aren't going to experience any difference in death rates in the vast majority of places because COVID deaths have already ended. And of course, when they were occurring, there was a lot of bad reporting there which conflated people who were dying anyway with people unexpectedly killed by the virus.

hervature 6y ago

Not if it doesn't affect the reproductive population

barbecue_sauce 6y ago
I'm fairly certain he meant "natural selection" in an analogous way, where those "selected" are the population that doesn't contract the virus.
- hervature 6y ago
  Natural selection is a very specific natural process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
- boyobo 6y ago
  Why call it 'natural selection' then. That's just 'selection'.

cookingrobot 6y ago

Unless non-mask wearers are seen as more attractive and so have more offspring. Too soon to know.

misanthropian00 6y ago
I have noticed that pretty girls seem to remove their masks more often. I think they miss being admired.

booleandilemma 6y ago

Not as much as voting for Trump or being a programmer.

johannes1234321 6y ago

The mortality braze is high among elders who likely had their children already or won't get any. Younger people suffer from other conditions primarily.

ketamine__ 6y ago

Masks aren't evidence based medicine. There isn't enough research. There are no randomized trials on cloth masks that are running. If evidence based medicine isn't an advantage then it's down to luck?

Ericson2314 6y ago
Both theory and empirical evidence. Mask wearing at least has the former: catching your own aerosols so you don't get other people sick so easily. The best is remedies that have both. But don't think evidence without good theory is fine. I'm not sure it's even that much better than theory without good evidence.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  That doesn't consider the possibly of a significant portion of the population infecting themselves. Remember, most people do not have the training to make a proper mask and use it correctly. That's the reason we need randomized trials. How do masks work outside of the lab? Also, it isn't accepted science that Covid-19 infects through aerosols.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Here's some evidence for the proposition that masks mitigate droplet-based respiratory transmission to varying degrees: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sci...
nicoburns 6y ago
Isn't containing coughs and sneezes (along with hand washing, etc) one of the most fundemental parts of our understanding of how to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The NHS has had the "catch it, bin it, kill it" motto for years as a way to prevent flu / common cold. There may not be studies specifically into covid-19 on this topic. But we do know that this is one of the primary spread vectors for basically every other similar respiritory disease. It's worth studying covid specifically just to be sure, but it would be bizarre if covid was different in this respect. And IMO it's completely wrong to say we have no evidence tht masks work.

fancyfredbot 6y ago

Mask wearing seems unlikely to be genetic. If it was genetic, there might be slight evolutionary pressure favouring those genes. I think the pressure would be slight as people of reproductive age are very likely to recover from the virus.

hatsunearu 6y ago
Doesn't have to be genetic, it can also be memetic.
discordance 6y ago
Not sure about that. There are known genetic influences for risk aversion. If risk averse folks wear masks, and suffer less/survive more, then this potentially could be an evolutionary mechanism.
- fancyfredbot 6y ago
  Yes, but risk aversion has implications on things other than mask wearing. It's pretty unclear that risk aversion will be selected for because of the pandemic. The least risk averse are probably more likely to find a partner this year for example. Plausibly risk aversion might even be selected against!

beervirus 6y ago

Covid mostly is not killing people of reproductive age. So mostly no. Anti-maskers are killing their parents, not themselves.

29athrowaway 6y ago
And people with vitamin D deficiency, regardless of age.

thu2111 6y ago

Mask mandates were mostly introduced after the first wave of deaths. And there's apparently no second wave in most places, even when the tests indicate a second wave of positive RT-PCRs. So - no. Mask wearers aren't going to experience any difference in death rates in the vast majority of places because COVID deaths have already ended. And of course, when they were occurring, there was a lot of bad reporting there which conflated people who were dying anyway with people unexpectedly killed by the virus.