5 ms·

I find it weird that science can't conclusively answer the question "is wearing a face mask going to significantly reduce the spread of covid". It's been nearly

by mfDjB 6y ago

I find it weird that science can't conclusively answer the question "is wearing a face mask going to significantly reduce the spread of covid". It's been nearly a year since this was a known disease, and beyond that masks have been around for a long time and they are used by the medical community to some degree. How can we not know based on the shear mechanics of these two entities whether this is effective? I feel like every other day there is a new study or report that refutes the study or the report I just saw from another respected institution. I'm not surprised people are frustrated at this problem. As an example, look at this study that was posted just 13 days ago on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25159583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25159583

raverbashing 6y ago
You're right, it should be better. The Danish study is not good. They're not controlling for mask/no mask, they're controlling for suggestion to use masks (and they didn't even go back and ask "did you wear a mask or not). In the end it seems people are more worried in publishing hastly prepared experiments/results than worrying about getting to the bottom of things. > How can we not know based on the shear mechanics of these two entities whether this is effective? It seems obvious to me that masks have a positive effect. A mechanical barrier is better than nothing. "Oh but influenza" Influenza and Coronaviruses are different Doctors and Dentists don't use masks because they think it's funny or comfortable
- ghthor 6y ago
  Doctors and dentists use masks because they dont want spit ending up in there patients.
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    It goes both ways, due to the sublingual glands. Especially when tongue depression or other procedures might trigger a release of saliva, or make the saliva in the mouth spread. Or cough. Or sneezes. If you were a doctor, would you be happy seeing a patient with a weird cough without masks/eye protection?
acqq 6y ago
There are different claims -- if one is "frustrated" it's only if one doesn't even attempt to distinguish what's written where. Reading more than just the title in the link you've given: "The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%" to the wearer. "The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms. Preventing the spread to others is known as source control." Now consider the following: if the "current" R number (the average of how many people are further infected by one infected person) in some environment is 1.2 that still results in the number of infected per day exponentially(!) increasing. Example: after the sequence of 10 infections with R 1.2 there are 6 infected, after the sequence of 20 -- 38, after the sequence of 30 -- 237 and after the sequence of 100 -- 82 million people infected, starting from just one. It is estimated that it takes just a few days for one sequence. Taking that number to be around 3.6 (it doesn't have to be that number, it's just to take some convenient number as an illustration) means that 100 sequences can be imagined as one year. So 82 million in one year. Now if every wearer is protected only 20%, it can appear to the wearer who doesn't understand math that he should not wear it. However, reducing current R number from 1.2 to 1 means that the number of infected per day doesn't increase at all but remains constant. Example: starting with 1 infected, after the sequence of 100 there are just 100 infected. Using the same convenient number, after one year, still just 100 infected. That, in turn, means that if everybody wears it, everybody wins: allowing exponential increase of infected will result in everybody becoming infected, whereas the constant number of daily infected could guarantee that most don't become infected before they can be vaccinated. Not to mention that if the number of infected per day can be kept constant some other kinds of measures (lockdowns with closures, bad for economy) could be completely avoided, especially if it is achieved at some low level. Which means that it can be of immense benefit to the wearer to wear the mask as much as possible even if he increased his own direct protection in some specific situation for mere 20%! Moreover, the benefits are dependent on most others also wearing the mask! If he's doing that alone, than it's in vain -- he alone can't change R for the whole population: his highest interest is to convince others to do the same. Being willing to understand math and to read carefully helps.
- matwood 6y ago
Moru 6y ago
How useful masks are depends on so many things. What are they made of is just a small part. Do you know how to use the masks you have? Do you have a beard? Or just a one day stubble? Some masks consists of one layer of fabric and even three-layer masks can't be worn endlessly, they can be washed but not infinitely. Some people wear the mask just covering the mouth, not the nose. Or upside down so the metal strip that seals around the nose is under the chin. I'm no expert in how to use masks but I see dubious things the whole time, both in reality and on TV.

by mfDjB 6y ago

raverbashing 6y ago

You're right, it should be better. The Danish study is not good. They're not controlling for mask/no mask, they're controlling for suggestion to use masks (and they didn't even go back and ask "did you wear a mask or not). In the end it seems people are more worried in publishing hastly prepared experiments/results than worrying about getting to the bottom of things. > How can we not know based on the shear mechanics of these two entities whether this is effective? It seems obvious to me that masks have a positive effect. A mechanical barrier is better than nothing. "Oh but influenza" Influenza and Coronaviruses are different Doctors and Dentists don't use masks because they think it's funny or comfortable

ghthor 6y ago
Doctors and dentists use masks because they dont want spit ending up in there patients.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  It goes both ways, due to the sublingual glands. Especially when tongue depression or other procedures might trigger a release of saliva, or make the saliva in the mouth spread. Or cough. Or sneezes. If you were a doctor, would you be happy seeing a patient with a weird cough without masks/eye protection?

acqq 6y ago

There are different claims -- if one is "frustrated" it's only if one doesn't even attempt to distinguish what's written where. Reading more than just the title in the link you've given: "The results could indicate a more moderate degree of protection of 15-20%" to the wearer. "The findings are consistent with previous research. Health experts have long said a mask provides only limited protection for the person wearing it, but can dramatically reduce the risk to others if the wearer is infected, even when showing no symptoms. Preventing the spread to others is known as source control." Now consider the following: if the "current" R number (the average of how many people are further infected by one infected person) in some environment is 1.2 that still results in the number of infected per day exponentially(!) increasing. Example: after the sequence of 10 infections with R 1.2 there are 6 infected, after the sequence of 20 -- 38, after the sequence of 30 -- 237 and after the sequence of 100 -- 82 million people infected, starting from just one. It is estimated that it takes just a few days for one sequence. Taking that number to be around 3.6 (it doesn't have to be that number, it's just to take some convenient number as an illustration) means that 100 sequences can be imagined as one year. So 82 million in one year. Now if every wearer is protected only 20%, it can appear to the wearer who doesn't understand math that he should not wear it. However, reducing current R number from 1.2 to 1 means that the number of infected per day doesn't increase at all but remains constant. Example: starting with 1 infected, after the sequence of 100 there are just 100 infected. Using the same convenient number, after one year, still just 100 infected. That, in turn, means that if everybody wears it, everybody wins: allowing exponential increase of infected will result in everybody becoming infected, whereas the constant number of daily infected could guarantee that most don't become infected before they can be vaccinated. Not to mention that if the number of infected per day can be kept constant some other kinds of measures (lockdowns with closures, bad for economy) could be completely avoided, especially if it is achieved at some low level. Which means that it can be of immense benefit to the wearer to wear the mask as much as possible even if he increased his own direct protection in some specific situation for mere 20%! Moreover, the benefits are dependent on most others also wearing the mask! If he's doing that alone, than it's in vain -- he alone can't change R for the whole population: his highest interest is to convince others to do the same. Being willing to understand math and to read carefully helps.

matwood 6y ago

Moru 6y ago

How useful masks are depends on so many things. What are they made of is just a small part. Do you know how to use the masks you have? Do you have a beard? Or just a one day stubble? Some masks consists of one layer of fabric and even three-layer masks can't be worn endlessly, they can be washed but not infinitely. Some people wear the mask just covering the mouth, not the nose. Or upside down so the metal strip that seals around the nose is under the chin. I'm no expert in how to use masks but I see dubious things the whole time, both in reality and on TV.