3 ms·
Essentially, early in the epidemic, that was fueled by two things: 1) Previous studies for flu have shown that masks have very little effect. 2) There was con
by Fomite 6y ago
Essentially, early in the epidemic, that was fueled by two things:
1) Previous studies for flu have shown that masks have very little effect.
2) There was concern about fomite transmission, and for good reason - both from previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS) and because of the initial settings (hospitals and the cruise ship). Donning and doffing contaminated PPE is a skill, and an actually fairly difficult one.
The combination of the two led to the active concern that the reduction in transmission due to mask wearing might very well be offset by people self-inoculating via their mouth or eyes.
The shift in thinking came about via two mechanisms as well:
1) The fomite transmission thing appeared to be less of a big deal than initial studies indicated.
2) Previous studies had looked at protecting people by wearing masks. The newer paradigm for masks is primarily focused on reducing the amount of virus asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic individuals are putting into the environment via droplets or aerosols. Hence things like "My mask protects you, your mask protects me."
- taurath 6y agoFor point 1 above and point 2 below: to my knowledge this was widely already known by the medical community, and is widely used throughout asia to protect others against any cough or airborne diseases. Did the previous studies for flu only take into consideration the protecting value for the individual wearing it? How does the wearing of masks during the spanish flu fit into that? Was that not effective then? I guess its hard to say. It seems, well, obvious in hindsight surely, but you'd think that something this obvious in hindsight would be figured out by experts beforehand. Telling people actively to not wear masks seems like they not only missed the shot but were actively harmful.