5 ms·

Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. If a single globule of liquid leaving an infecte

by blunte 6y ago

Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. If a single globule of liquid leaving an infected person's mouth, whether due to a cough, a sneeze, or just a spitty staccato spoken statement, is a transmission opportunity. If a mask catches only one such drop, then it has lowered the risk of transmission. Hell, having all conversations with a pair of underwear on your head (covering your mouth and nose) would help. People saying otherwise are either truly ignorant or intentionally lying. Now maybe masks ultimately provide such a modest benefit relative to their cost and discomfort as to not be worth it, but we just don't know and probably never will definitively know.

mrob 6y ago
>Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. It does not. It's possible for a filter to break some droplets into smaller droplets that linger in the air for longer. Evidence suggests that masks are still a net benefit, but this is by scientific study, not "by definition".
- freen 6y ago
  I haven’t seen any research that indicates this. Would you mind sharing your source? Thanks!
  - 40four 6y ago
    They aren’t wrong, the main culprit appears to be the synthetic neck gaiters. But most types of masks have not been shown to do this. So masks aren’t perfect, but are undoubtedly a net benefit. This link talks about neck gaiters https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/update-mask-requirement-data-reinforces-masks-work-neck-gaiters-not-effective-latest https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/update-mask-requirement-dat...
  - mrob 6y ago
    I remember reading it in a comment on HN and I'm struggling to find the source. It was about improvised woven fabric masks, not medical type masks. But even if this is actually false, it doesn't change the fact that reducing flow rate does not "by definition" reduce virus spread (assuming this means infection spread, and not a literal synonym). Infection risk depends on more than just virus particle count, so you need to count infections (and as many other comments point out, that is being done, and the number of infections is reduced).
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Here's one that shows masks lose effectiveness over time: https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 They're using I think single layer of cotton, and 2ply or 3ply disposable paper masks. These are very low quality masks, and if masks work people probably shouldn't be wearing these.
    - freen 6y ago
      Thanks! Loosing effectiveness over time is very, very different than being actively harmful as is claimed upthread.
- blunte 6y ago
  Ok, fair enough. We cannot say based on current information if withholding some virus particles at the cost of delivering a few in a more long-lasting form is better or worse. Since we cannot test all possibilities here, it is then left to intuition and "wisdom". I have to believe that significantly reducing the number of virus particles in the air while allowing a few to linger longer would be preferable to the opposite. As I have observed, people are terrible at judging distances. I am probably more likely to get infected by a spray of cough droplets at close range than a few individual tiny droplets floating in the breeze. If I had my way, most people would be wearing masks permananently (and also not allowed to come within 3 meters of me), virus or not.
athenot 6y ago
There also appears to be a viral load issue. Exposure to a few droplets containing the virus carries risk of transmission, but exposure to many lung-fuls of contaminated air seems to have an even higher risk[1]. [1] SARS-CoV-2 viral load predicts COVID-19 mortality Elisabet Pujadas, Fayzan Chaudhry, Russell McBride, Felix Richter, Shan Zhao, Ania Wajnberg https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30354-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
alkonaut 6y ago
> Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. On an individual level yes. On a population level, probably. But studies are few (and difficult, relying on natural experiments). The important question isn’t whether a mask reduces transmission but how much people change behavior. For example: you really need to go somewhere and the bus looks full. Does people wearing masks on the bus increase the likelihood that you get on it? You don’t want that to happen
pc86 6y ago
Stopping a single virus particle technically reduces risk of transmission but if you're only stopping a single particle, whatever your doing isn't worth the time it's taking to do it. There is a line somewhere. People saying otherwise are either truly ignorant or intentionally lying.
- blunte 6y ago
  Thus the last paragraph of my comment.

by blunte 6y ago

mrob 6y ago

>Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. It does not. It's possible for a filter to break some droplets into smaller droplets that linger in the air for longer. Evidence suggests that masks are still a net benefit, but this is by scientific study, not "by definition".

freen 6y ago
I haven’t seen any research that indicates this. Would you mind sharing your source? Thanks!
- 40four 6y ago
  They aren’t wrong, the main culprit appears to be the synthetic neck gaiters. But most types of masks have not been shown to do this. So masks aren’t perfect, but are undoubtedly a net benefit. This link talks about neck gaiters https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/update-mask-requirement-data-reinforces-masks-work-neck-gaiters-not-effective-latest https://scdhec.gov/news-releases/update-mask-requirement-dat...
- mrob 6y ago
  I remember reading it in a comment on HN and I'm struggling to find the source. It was about improvised woven fabric masks, not medical type masks. But even if this is actually false, it doesn't change the fact that reducing flow rate does not "by definition" reduce virus spread (assuming this means infection spread, and not a literal synonym). Infection risk depends on more than just virus particle count, so you need to count infections (and as many other comments point out, that is being done, and the number of infections is reduced).
- DanBC 6y ago
  Here's one that shows masks lose effectiveness over time: https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 https://www.ijic.info/article/view/10788 They're using I think single layer of cotton, and 2ply or 3ply disposable paper masks. These are very low quality masks, and if masks work people probably shouldn't be wearing these.
  - freen 6y ago
    Thanks! Loosing effectiveness over time is very, very different than being actively harmful as is claimed upthread.
blunte 6y ago
Ok, fair enough. We cannot say based on current information if withholding some virus particles at the cost of delivering a few in a more long-lasting form is better or worse. Since we cannot test all possibilities here, it is then left to intuition and "wisdom". I have to believe that significantly reducing the number of virus particles in the air while allowing a few to linger longer would be preferable to the opposite. As I have observed, people are terrible at judging distances. I am probably more likely to get infected by a spray of cough droplets at close range than a few individual tiny droplets floating in the breeze. If I had my way, most people would be wearing masks permananently (and also not allowed to come within 3 meters of me), virus or not.

athenot 6y ago

There also appears to be a viral load issue. Exposure to a few droplets containing the virus carries risk of transmission, but exposure to many lung-fuls of contaminated air seems to have an even higher risk[1]. [1] SARS-CoV-2 viral load predicts COVID-19 mortality Elisabet Pujadas, Fayzan Chaudhry, Russell McBride, Felix Richter, Shan Zhao, Ania Wajnberg https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30354-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...

alkonaut 6y ago

> Anything that in any way reduces the flow of virus particles by definition reduces the spreading of the virus. On an individual level yes. On a population level, probably. But studies are few (and difficult, relying on natural experiments). The important question isn’t whether a mask reduces transmission but how much people change behavior. For example: you really need to go somewhere and the bus looks full. Does people wearing masks on the bus increase the likelihood that you get on it? You don’t want that to happen

pc86 6y ago

Stopping a single virus particle technically reduces risk of transmission but if you're only stopping a single particle, whatever your doing isn't worth the time it's taking to do it. There is a line somewhere. People saying otherwise are either truly ignorant or intentionally lying.

blunte 6y ago
Thus the last paragraph of my comment.