3 ms·

>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 brea

by 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.

by mrob 6y ago

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.