3 ms·

I'd like to add a couple of points: 1. It's not that hard for the general population to wear an FFP2 mask properly. I'm reasonably sure that this also applies

by blub 6y ago

I'd like to add a couple of points: 1. It's not that hard for the general population to wear an FFP2 mask properly. I'm reasonably sure that this also applies to N95 masks. If you'll read the instructions that come with e.g. Dräger or Moldex masks, you'll see that the fitting procedure doesn't include anything as complicated as smell tests, but instructs the wearer to do a rather obvious leak test instead. Dräger is now selling FFP2 masks directly to end customers: https://ffpshop.de/de/ffp-maske/draeger-x-plore-1720-ffp2-maske https://ffpshop.de/de/ffp-maske/draeger-x-plore-1720-ffp2-ma.... Check out the instructions, it's nothing fancy. 2. There are studies that indicate that surgical masks reduce risk even at population level. I've referenced them in a previous comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25479729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25479729. The conclusion of was "Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission." Finally, I'd like to address the RCT you've linked to from Denmark which I found interesting, but not particularly consequential. For me the biggest concerns are that: * many things were self-reported. * previous studies have found massive differences in wearer protection for surgical masks. Did they get a crap batch from China? It's not clear to me how they used masks. I can't reconcile 1.7 masks per weekday with the idea that such a mask should not be worn for more than a couple of hours or until it gets wet and the typical shift duration of 8h. * didn't look at disease severity (or maybe I missed it?) * didn't (couldn't) look at source control. For an individual it's important that they don't get sick (FFP2 preferred), for a government it's important that not too many people get sick (anything preferred, as long as it reduces transmission, even if it makes the wearer sick).

BrendanEich 6y ago
"as long as it reduces transmission, even if it makes the wearer sick" So the only risk in life is Covid, there's no such thing as relative risk, masks could never be a net loss for anyone? No. Again, by all long-term studies, and with anti-correlation headwinds all over the place, mask mandates are not justified.
- blub 6y ago
  At least in Germany the potential social benefit was weighed against the personal discomfort and the latter was not considered significant enough. There are people that can't wear masks for various reasons and they can get a doctor's notice for that. In fairness, that's not working so great, since they're exposed to a lot of social pressure, especially since it was discovered that some doctors rubber-stamp these notices. In the end, even a surgical mask will prevent e.g. the janitor from spitting on me for the 5m he comes by to check on things. If I'm wearing a FFP2, I'm also quite safe from aerosols, so it's a win, especially since maintaining distance is not something humans are reliably able to do. Take this and multiply it by hundreds of situations and millions of people and you're bound to reduce contagion risk. I don't see why that's bad... especially since surgical masks are really cheap and not too inconvenient. Now if everyone were mandated to wear an FFP2 mask which is inconvenient maybe that would require more consideration.
  - BrendanEich 6y ago
    Masks that don't seal tightly against skin vent (backwards as well as up and down). You feel "quite safe from aerosols" but the empirical studies don't back this up across real world large-N groups. So mandating an insufficient mask is worse than mandating one that might make a measurable difference, but in any event: mandates are not justified in my view, on also not advised by long-term WHO and CDC guidance, and they are in a legal "gray area" in the US. Germany and USA: https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1359677558829191169 https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1359677558829191169
    - kodah 6y ago
      Just going to preface with I don't agree that masks didn't help. The clean fit to a face is pertinent to zero exposure. This is a common test in the military: dawn your mask, cover the vents, and suck in. If you don't feel immense pressure on your face, if you can't shake your head and do it again then you're metaphorically dead. Part of this fit is having a mask that fits your face and being clean shaven. I don't know that COVID protection needs to hit this mark, since this is designed for nerve agents and nuclear fallout. It seems like trapping quantities of the virus is good enough, since it takes some threshold of exposure to get someone infected.

by blub 6y ago

BrendanEich 6y ago

"as long as it reduces transmission, even if it makes the wearer sick" So the only risk in life is Covid, there's no such thing as relative risk, masks could never be a net loss for anyone? No. Again, by all long-term studies, and with anti-correlation headwinds all over the place, mask mandates are not justified.

blub 6y ago
At least in Germany the potential social benefit was weighed against the personal discomfort and the latter was not considered significant enough. There are people that can't wear masks for various reasons and they can get a doctor's notice for that. In fairness, that's not working so great, since they're exposed to a lot of social pressure, especially since it was discovered that some doctors rubber-stamp these notices. In the end, even a surgical mask will prevent e.g. the janitor from spitting on me for the 5m he comes by to check on things. If I'm wearing a FFP2, I'm also quite safe from aerosols, so it's a win, especially since maintaining distance is not something humans are reliably able to do. Take this and multiply it by hundreds of situations and millions of people and you're bound to reduce contagion risk. I don't see why that's bad... especially since surgical masks are really cheap and not too inconvenient. Now if everyone were mandated to wear an FFP2 mask which is inconvenient maybe that would require more consideration.
- BrendanEich 6y ago
  Masks that don't seal tightly against skin vent (backwards as well as up and down). You feel "quite safe from aerosols" but the empirical studies don't back this up across real world large-N groups. So mandating an insufficient mask is worse than mandating one that might make a measurable difference, but in any event: mandates are not justified in my view, on also not advised by long-term WHO and CDC guidance, and they are in a legal "gray area" in the US. Germany and USA: https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1359677558829191169 https://twitter.com/ianmSC/status/1359677558829191169
  - kodah 6y ago
    Just going to preface with I don't agree that masks didn't help. The clean fit to a face is pertinent to zero exposure. This is a common test in the military: dawn your mask, cover the vents, and suck in. If you don't feel immense pressure on your face, if you can't shake your head and do it again then you're metaphorically dead. Part of this fit is having a mask that fits your face and being clean shaven. I don't know that COVID protection needs to hit this mark, since this is designed for nerve agents and nuclear fallout. It seems like trapping quantities of the virus is good enough, since it takes some threshold of exposure to get someone infected.