4 ms·

masks (and lockdowns) are safety theater, for the benefit of seeming like good, caring citizens because of the high visibility of wearing a mask, when the hard

masks (and lockdowns) are safety theater, for the benefit of seeming like good, caring citizens because of the high visibility of wearing a mask, when the hard work of preventing spread comes down to distancing properly even when that’s socially awkward, like at a gathering which is where mask usage also dives, because it’s private and the humans involved are overly trusting and complicit. masks are a distraction at best, helping only at the margins when worn vigorously where distancing is not possible. we don’t need to solve a mask shortage problem, but rather the social distancing problem that masks are only marginally helpful for. npr loves talking incessantly about masks, both as virtue signal and click getter, even in stories where its utterly, entirely irrelevant.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
You're right there's some deep tribal instinct. And masks scratch that itch big time. Strap the tribe sign right to your face!
nucleardog 6y ago
> masks are a distraction at best Wat. This study[1] from China reports on infections at one hospital in Wuhan in January. Of 493 medical staff, 278 were in the "quarantine" area. This included the respiratory department that would have had very intimate contact with the infected. There were zero cases of SARS-Cov-2 among the staff. Of the 213 staff from other departments that were _not_ in close, continuous contact with the infected (but also not taking infection control measures), there were 10 cases in a less than three week span. Masks are in no way "marginally" helpful. If worn properly and used alongside other basic measures such as hand washing, they are extremely effective even in absence of social distancing measures. This meta-study[2] compiles information on effectiveness from a dozen different studies across healthcare and non-healthcare groups. Effectiveness varies, but almost every single study shows decreased transmission with masks. Taken at aggregate among those that weren't healthcare workers, your risk of infection is halved by wearing a mask. The CDC has repeatedly claimed that if everyone wore a mask the outbreak in the US would be under control in one to two months. Simply social distancing does not remove the risk of infection as we've seen time and time again. The droplets don't hit some magical barrier as soon as they're 2 metres away from the source. Masks are not virtue signalling or safety theater. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7134426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7134426/ [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/
- clairity 6y ago
  do you live in a hospital? because if not, those studies are of very limited utility to you, proving only that masks can possibly lower spread in a highly controlled environment, with no more than a suggestive hypothesis in any other scenario. the CDC provides no plausible causal chain to believe masks by themselves would contain the outbreak. you've provided no plausible causal chain that a falling droplet will suddenly shoot a virus particle right up your nose into that juicy bronchial mucus the virus loves, that a mask would prevent with high certainty. in the real world, where masks are of highly varying quality and the general usage is poor at best, distancing, even modestly, does the heavy lifitng.
  - nucleardog 6y ago
    I think everything you've brought up here is addressed in the second link I provided. I assume you didn't read it because they very clearly separate the studies of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers, including at least 3 studies covering a household setting with infected living alongside uninfected. Any of your points that aren't covered in that meta-analysis are easily addressed by other readily available literature. I replied in good faith assuming maybe you were just unaware, but I can see now you're intentionally ignorant. I'm out. Have a nice day.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

You're right there's some deep tribal instinct. And masks scratch that itch big time. Strap the tribe sign right to your face!

nucleardog 6y ago

> masks are a distraction at best Wat. This study[1] from China reports on infections at one hospital in Wuhan in January. Of 493 medical staff, 278 were in the "quarantine" area. This included the respiratory department that would have had very intimate contact with the infected. There were zero cases of SARS-Cov-2 among the staff. Of the 213 staff from other departments that were _not_ in close, continuous contact with the infected (but also not taking infection control measures), there were 10 cases in a less than three week span. Masks are in no way "marginally" helpful. If worn properly and used alongside other basic measures such as hand washing, they are extremely effective even in absence of social distancing measures. This meta-study[2] compiles information on effectiveness from a dozen different studies across healthcare and non-healthcare groups. Effectiveness varies, but almost every single study shows decreased transmission with masks. Taken at aggregate among those that weren't healthcare workers, your risk of infection is halved by wearing a mask. The CDC has repeatedly claimed that if everyone wore a mask the outbreak in the US would be under control in one to two months. Simply social distancing does not remove the risk of infection as we've seen time and time again. The droplets don't hit some magical barrier as soon as they're 2 metres away from the source. Masks are not virtue signalling or safety theater. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7134426/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7134426/ [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/

clairity 6y ago
do you live in a hospital? because if not, those studies are of very limited utility to you, proving only that masks can possibly lower spread in a highly controlled environment, with no more than a suggestive hypothesis in any other scenario. the CDC provides no plausible causal chain to believe masks by themselves would contain the outbreak. you've provided no plausible causal chain that a falling droplet will suddenly shoot a virus particle right up your nose into that juicy bronchial mucus the virus loves, that a mask would prevent with high certainty. in the real world, where masks are of highly varying quality and the general usage is poor at best, distancing, even modestly, does the heavy lifitng.
- nucleardog 6y ago
  I think everything you've brought up here is addressed in the second link I provided. I assume you didn't read it because they very clearly separate the studies of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers, including at least 3 studies covering a household setting with infected living alongside uninfected. Any of your points that aren't covered in that meta-analysis are easily addressed by other readily available literature. I replied in good faith assuming maybe you were just unaware, but I can see now you're intentionally ignorant. I'm out. Have a nice day.