4 ms·

right, because masks are performative. that's why you see them so much out in public where they do little, but not much in private spaces where they could help

right, because masks are performative. that's why you see them so much out in public where they do little, but not much in private spaces where they could help in specific instances. that limited context is when two people are facing each other, one infected, in relatively calm air, and within direct exhaust inhalation distance (~1m/3ft). yet we've been sold by the political media machine that they prevent spread everywhere, so "just wear a mask!" it's become the #1 policy prescription all over the world, because it's seen as doing something visible (political win) but not too much (more political win!). distancing among non-household members when indoors is a much better first mitigation, but it keeps getting lumped in with masks (and the even less useful hand-washing/sanitizing) and drowned out because it's not as visibly performative. if the virus doesn't land on mucus membranes it's overwhelmingly likely to die.

simplicitea 6y ago
I find these graphs from Vanderbilt to be particularly compelling (page 2) evidence of the effectiveness of mask mandates on general public wellbeing. What do you think? Anything I should be reconsidering? https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/public_files/Vanderbilt%20COVID19%20Report-Oct%2027.pdf https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/publi...
- clairity 6y ago
  while the report is clearly written to support masking mandates, they do provide the (counter-)explanation on page 3: > "As in our August report, we stress that areas with masking requirements also have seen greater changes in other community behavior (e.g., lower mobility to higher-risk points of interest) and may also have other virus mitigation strategies in place, so the observed relationship is likely not just about masking." the mitigative effects of the masking order is drowned out by concurrent, confounding mitigations, which aren't detailed unfortunately. i'd contend that the concurrent effects of a masking order is likely very minor (<10% of the overall effect), because distancing and reduced social interaction does the overwhelming bulk of the work, but that data is left out of the report. that's not to say masks are always useless; they have a critical role in (health-)care settings and for essential workers who interact closely with many other people daily. but that's a tiny slice of daily interactions and a nuance that gets drowned out by the mediopolitical machine incentivized by conspicous credit, not solution (biden is already doubling-down, talking about a national mask mandate as his first order of business). the report includes some other interesting (counter-)information (like the counter-effectiveness of "Safer At Home" orders as exhibited in figure 2), but i'll leave it there for now.

simplicitea 6y ago

I find these graphs from Vanderbilt to be particularly compelling (page 2) evidence of the effectiveness of mask mandates on general public wellbeing. What do you think? Anything I should be reconsidering? https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/public_files/Vanderbilt%20COVID19%20Report-Oct%2027.pdf https://www.vumc.org/health-policy/sites/default/files/publi...

clairity 6y ago
while the report is clearly written to support masking mandates, they do provide the (counter-)explanation on page 3: > "As in our August report, we stress that areas with masking requirements also have seen greater changes in other community behavior (e.g., lower mobility to higher-risk points of interest) and may also have other virus mitigation strategies in place, so the observed relationship is likely not just about masking." the mitigative effects of the masking order is drowned out by concurrent, confounding mitigations, which aren't detailed unfortunately. i'd contend that the concurrent effects of a masking order is likely very minor (<10% of the overall effect), because distancing and reduced social interaction does the overwhelming bulk of the work, but that data is left out of the report. that's not to say masks are always useless; they have a critical role in (health-)care settings and for essential workers who interact closely with many other people daily. but that's a tiny slice of daily interactions and a nuance that gets drowned out by the mediopolitical machine incentivized by conspicous credit, not solution (biden is already doubling-down, talking about a national mask mandate as his first order of business). the report includes some other interesting (counter-)information (like the counter-effectiveness of "Safer At Home" orders as exhibited in figure 2), but i'll leave it there for now.