3 ms·

How does this address the assertion that there's already been research out of Asia that says masks are effective against these kind of viruses?

mcguire 6y ago
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're asking. Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" Evidence that the US health experts knew of the research but are Snidely Whiplash-ish, mustache-twirling evil? As far as I can tell, they're just as confused as any other scientist trying to do their best, with the additional constraint that they have to provide an answer to a question and that any nuance in that answer will be ignored anyway. The link I posted is to a 2019 paper discussing how and why some viruses are considered airborne transmissible such that masks would help. (Single papers don't usually settle complex questions, right?) cactus2093's links are to a paper discussing the difficulty of getting people to use masks correctly and a science popularization article describing an unnamed study from the University of New South Wales and an unidentified CDC study. The first link does include references about the utility of masks, to articles titled "Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model", "Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians", "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review", "Professional and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population", and "A schlieren optical study of the human cough with and without wearing masks for aerosol infection control", but those don't seem to imply the issue is settled. The second link does go on to say, "While some governments are already stockpiling masks for use in emergencies, MacIntyre said these guidelines had been implemented without evidence to support them. "We now have provided that evidence," she said," but it's difficult to evaluate the last sentence.
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  You said > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. cactus2093 replied > I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm... There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. 1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. 2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. So the question remains, are you wrong about your assertion that > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. and if not, what are we missing about what you're trying to say? > Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" There was certainly the perception that Asians wearing masks was ridiculous. Whether or not this perception extended to American experts and influenced their conclusions is unknown to me.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. "1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. "2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses." Backing up a bit... As far as I've seen, there are three primary routes for infection for respiratory diseases: 1) contaminated surfaces, 2) (large) droplets produced mostly by coughing or sneezing, and 3) (small) aerosol particles produced by normal activities like breathing and speaking. The normal measures against 1) are avoiding touching possibly contaminated surfaces, washing your hands, and not touching your eyes, mouth, etc. And roughly speaking, that's about all you can do. The normal measures against 2) are staying distant (i.e. 6ft) and keeping interactions short because the droplets do not remain airborne long, and covering your face when you cough or sneeze. Masks would certainly be helpful in the case of 2), but not especially so because a) the normal measures work fairly well, b) most people do not want to wear a mask[1], c) many people who do wear a mask do not do so correctly, and d) the supplies of medical grade masks were (are?) sketchy. (Both of the links provided are specifically aimed at b) and c), no?)[2] A study of 1000 students at an Australian university is interesting, but the advantage of a) don't necessarily overwhelm b), c), and d). There are no normal measures against 3). The only useful measures are to avoid all contact with potential carriers, significantly improve indoor ventilation and air filtration (aerosols remain airborne for a very long time), and properly using medically-effective masks when interactions are required. Transmission by asymptomatic carriers is primary, hard epidemiological evidence of 3). According to (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322154/), asymptomatic carriers were reported at the end of January and significant confirmation appeared about March (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article). Shortly after that (April 3), the CDC recommended masks (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422). From your limited choices, my closest meaning is your 1). But,.... Now, put yourself in the place of someone making an official policy recommendation in, say, February or early March. You don't have hard evidence that masks are required, but you do understand that they will provide some marginal benefit. On the other hand, ensuring that masks are worn consistently and correctly is an uphill struggle (as we have seen over the last year). Further, the supply of medical grade masks where their use is required, hospitals for example, is not infinite. Oh, and you want to make the minimally invasive recommendation you can, because you actually aren't out to cause as much damage as possible by, say, killing the economy. Beyond that, you know that at some point you are going to be facing pandemic fatigue, where people stop taking the situation seriously and then things get very bad (as in last summer, last fall, and earlier this winter). What do you do? As it turns out, they were wrong about some of their assumptions. Being wrong happens. It is not proof of an evil conspiracy or even of a conspiracy of stupidity. It's people who are pretty good at what they do, making what they think are the best choices, and being wrong. Suggested Reading https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25616014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25616014 (No, really, "The Plague Year" in the New Yorker is probably the best history of the pandemic so far, and explicitly touches on a lot of these issues---including medical professionals saying, "yeah, we were wrong.") [1] I am talking about the US specifically, not Taiwan, Japan, or anywhere where mask wearing is more common socially. [2] Everyone wearing pressurized, highly filtered contamination suits at all times would prevent essentially all cases of respiratory disease transmission. But no one is going to push that idea without a really, really good reason. PS: While writing this, I ran across https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655320307811 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019665532..., which is the first solid, halfway data-backed estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers: 1.82%

mcguire 6y ago

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're asking. Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" Evidence that the US health experts knew of the research but are Snidely Whiplash-ish, mustache-twirling evil? As far as I can tell, they're just as confused as any other scientist trying to do their best, with the additional constraint that they have to provide an answer to a question and that any nuance in that answer will be ignored anyway. The link I posted is to a 2019 paper discussing how and why some viruses are considered airborne transmissible such that masks would help. (Single papers don't usually settle complex questions, right?) cactus2093's links are to a paper discussing the difficulty of getting people to use masks correctly and a science popularization article describing an unnamed study from the University of New South Wales and an unidentified CDC study. The first link does include references about the utility of masks, to articles titled "Risk of transmission of airborne infection during train commute based on mathematical model", "Knowledge about pandemic influenza and compliance with containment measures among Australians", "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review", "Professional and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population", and "A schlieren optical study of the human cough with and without wearing masks for aerosol infection control", but those don't seem to imply the issue is settled. The second link does go on to say, "While some governments are already stockpiling masks for use in emergencies, MacIntyre said these guidelines had been implemented without evidence to support them. "We now have provided that evidence," she said," but it's difficult to evaluate the last sentence.

thereare5lights 6y ago
You said > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. cactus2093 replied > I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm... There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. 1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. 2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. So the question remains, are you wrong about your assertion that > Prior to 2020, most medical professionals believed most viruses, and corona viruses particularly, could not be transported as aerosols. This was a subject of research where the data had not come in. and if not, what are we missing about what you're trying to say? > Some kind of admission that the US health field ignored research because "eww, icky Asians?" There was certainly the perception that Asians wearing masks was ridiculous. Whether or not this perception extended to American experts and influenced their conclusions is unknown to me.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "There's two ways I can see you interpreting this. "1) You are being extremely narrow in your focus and saying that you are talking specifically about viruses being transmitted as aerosols (although the overarching topic here is about whether or not masks are effective). And thus, since there was no research specifically about this, then there's no reason to recommend masks. This doesn't address the point that there's research that shows masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses. "2) You actually are talking about effectiveness of masks and saying that viruses could not be transmitted via aerosol was to say that because they are not shown to be transmitted via aerosol, then there's no evidence that masks would work, in which case, again, we're back to the issue that there was research prior to 2020 that showed masks are effective against similar kinds of viruses." Backing up a bit... As far as I've seen, there are three primary routes for infection for respiratory diseases: 1) contaminated surfaces, 2) (large) droplets produced mostly by coughing or sneezing, and 3) (small) aerosol particles produced by normal activities like breathing and speaking. The normal measures against 1) are avoiding touching possibly contaminated surfaces, washing your hands, and not touching your eyes, mouth, etc. And roughly speaking, that's about all you can do. The normal measures against 2) are staying distant (i.e. 6ft) and keeping interactions short because the droplets do not remain airborne long, and covering your face when you cough or sneeze. Masks would certainly be helpful in the case of 2), but not especially so because a) the normal measures work fairly well, b) most people do not want to wear a mask[1], c) many people who do wear a mask do not do so correctly, and d) the supplies of medical grade masks were (are?) sketchy. (Both of the links provided are specifically aimed at b) and c), no?)[2] A study of 1000 students at an Australian university is interesting, but the advantage of a) don't necessarily overwhelm b), c), and d). There are no normal measures against 3). The only useful measures are to avoid all contact with potential carriers, significantly improve indoor ventilation and air filtration (aerosols remain airborne for a very long time), and properly using medically-effective masks when interactions are required. Transmission by asymptomatic carriers is primary, hard epidemiological evidence of 3). According to (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322154/), asymptomatic carriers were reported at the end of January and significant confirmation appeared about March (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article). Shortly after that (April 3), the CDC recommended masks (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422). From your limited choices, my closest meaning is your 1). But,.... Now, put yourself in the place of someone making an official policy recommendation in, say, February or early March. You don't have hard evidence that masks are required, but you do understand that they will provide some marginal benefit. On the other hand, ensuring that masks are worn consistently and correctly is an uphill struggle (as we have seen over the last year). Further, the supply of medical grade masks where their use is required, hospitals for example, is not infinite. Oh, and you want to make the minimally invasive recommendation you can, because you actually aren't out to cause as much damage as possible by, say, killing the economy. Beyond that, you know that at some point you are going to be facing pandemic fatigue, where people stop taking the situation seriously and then things get very bad (as in last summer, last fall, and earlier this winter). What do you do? As it turns out, they were wrong about some of their assumptions. Being wrong happens. It is not proof of an evil conspiracy or even of a conspiracy of stupidity. It's people who are pretty good at what they do, making what they think are the best choices, and being wrong. Suggested Reading https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25616014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25616014 (No, really, "The Plague Year" in the New Yorker is probably the best history of the pandemic so far, and explicitly touches on a lot of these issues---including medical professionals saying, "yeah, we were wrong.") [1] I am talking about the US specifically, not Taiwan, Japan, or anywhere where mask wearing is more common socially. [2] Everyone wearing pressurized, highly filtered contamination suits at all times would prevent essentially all cases of respiratory disease transmission. But no one is going to push that idea without a really, really good reason. PS: While writing this, I ran across https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655320307811 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019665532..., which is the first solid, halfway data-backed estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers: 1.82%