3 ms·
Even good medical masks didn’t protect Li Wenliang. There was always agreement about well fitted n95 but we’re told, even by your linked article not to use thos
by splithalf 5y ago
Even good medical masks didn’t protect Li Wenliang. There was always agreement about well fitted n95 but we’re told, even by your linked article not to use those. Sorry but this seems like politics not science. Obviously if you layer enough masks you can almost get to n95 levels of protection but why not just use an n95 at that point?
- eloff 5y agoThe point is not that it gives you perfect protection or even n95 protection. It does give you more protection than maskless. Also the lower the viral load you're exposed to, the longer your body has to prepare. How the disease progresses is dosage dependant. A low enough load is like a natural vaccination. You don't get sick, but you get some immunity. A high enough load and you can get the sickness very severely. It's a gradient, and masks help put you lower on that gradient than otherwise.
- splithalf 5y agoSure but it’s all about quantifying that accurately so that it can be compared to for example better building ventilation. If, hypothetically, better ventilation had 100x the effect of mask wearing, then focusing attention on masks would be counter productive no? Make no mistake I’m pro mask but mostly for psychological, ethical and economic reasons. I feel their benefits in terms of personal protection are vastly overstated, often in bad faith by those with a desire to impact other people’s behavior albeit with the best of intentions.
- eloff 5y agoWhy can't you do both? Mask wearing is simple, cheap, and available to all. That's like asking if it's better to focus on masks or vaccines. The answer is both. As long as it's even marginally effective (and evidence suggests it's more than marginally effective) then it is a good idea.