4 ms·

I’ve reread this several times. I’m not really sure what you are saying here? The biggest hint is the italicized “swears” are you saying that you think masks a

by rblatz 5y ago

I’ve reread this several times. I’m not really sure what you are saying here? The biggest hint is the italicized “swears” are you saying that you think masks are a hoax?

chitowneats 5y ago
No, I don't believe they're a "hoax". I believe they are a well-intentioned attempt to control viral spread. But just like during Spanish Flu, they have not meaningfully changed outcomes for localities that required them vs. those that didn't. The scientific consensus in Western medicine for 100 years after analysis of Spanish Flu, was that masks do not prevent or slow the spread of a respiratory pandemic. You'd need a respirator for that (N95 "mask"), and you'd need to wear it all the time given what we know now about airborne transmission of Sars-Cov-2. We will soon be returning to this consensus with any luck: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v... "Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States..." "Conclusion: mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies"
- gilbetron 5y ago
  It'll take a while to figure it out, but most of what I've read is coming to the opposite conclusion: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 A big issue is all the stupidity around "you don't need to wear masks in restaurants".
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    The capricious and hypocritical nature of masking policy is surely frustrating but I fail to see how that is relevant to whether or not they are effective. We're talking about the science, not the public perception of the science, right?
    - gilbetron 5y ago
      Determining mask efficacy is made much more difficult when people aren't using them effectively. If people are going to restaurants, and having private (indoor!) parties, and going to churches, and any number of events where they don't wear masks, then the pathogen is able to still propagate around. Now, if you are arguing that masks aren't effective because people won't actually wear them, then I agree that "wear masks" as a policy needs a lot of work. I'm saying if people actually wore masks when appropriate, then they are effective.
      - chitowneats 5y ago
        I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that the cloth that you found in the junk drawer, and the surgical masks that you bought as a pack of 50 on Amazon, do not filter microscopic viral particles. They say so right on the label in many cases. The research I've read and linked also suggests that this is the case. Maybe in a few years you'll agree that it's common sense. If you want to actually filter the air that you inhale and exhale I recommend an N95.
        gilbetron 5y ago
        You don't need to filter out the viruses, you need to filter the aerosol the viruses are sitting in. That is a major plus of Covid, verification (repeatedly) and acceptance of that fact.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        Except that we know now Sars-Cov-2 transmission is airborne. As the aerosol caught in your mask evaporates, the virus sheds into the surrounding air, where it is later contracted by someone else. I think you'll be a little disappointed at the level of "acceptance" of mask wearing & efficacy going forward.

by rblatz 5y ago

I’ve reread this several times. I’m not really sure what you are saying here? The biggest hint is the italicized “swears” are you saying that you think masks are a hoax?

chitowneats 5y ago

No, I don't believe they're a "hoax". I believe they are a well-intentioned attempt to control viral spread. But just like during Spanish Flu, they have not meaningfully changed outcomes for localities that required them vs. those that didn't. The scientific consensus in Western medicine for 100 years after analysis of Spanish Flu, was that masks do not prevent or slow the spread of a respiratory pandemic. You'd need a respirator for that (N95 "mask"), and you'd need to wear it all the time given what we know now about airborne transmission of Sars-Cov-2. We will soon be returning to this consensus with any luck: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v... "Randomized control trials have not clearly demonstrated mask efficacy against respiratory viruses, and observational studies conflict on whether mask use predicts lower infection rates. We hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates in the United States..." "Conclusion: mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges. Containment requires future research and implementation of existing efficacious strategies"

gilbetron 5y ago
It'll take a while to figure it out, but most of what I've read is coming to the opposite conclusion: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118 A big issue is all the stupidity around "you don't need to wear masks in restaurants".
- chitowneats 5y ago
  The capricious and hypocritical nature of masking policy is surely frustrating but I fail to see how that is relevant to whether or not they are effective. We're talking about the science, not the public perception of the science, right?
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    Determining mask efficacy is made much more difficult when people aren't using them effectively. If people are going to restaurants, and having private (indoor!) parties, and going to churches, and any number of events where they don't wear masks, then the pathogen is able to still propagate around. Now, if you are arguing that masks aren't effective because people won't actually wear them, then I agree that "wear masks" as a policy needs a lot of work. I'm saying if people actually wore masks when appropriate, then they are effective.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that the cloth that you found in the junk drawer, and the surgical masks that you bought as a pack of 50 on Amazon, do not filter microscopic viral particles. They say so right on the label in many cases. The research I've read and linked also suggests that this is the case. Maybe in a few years you'll agree that it's common sense. If you want to actually filter the air that you inhale and exhale I recommend an N95.
      - gilbetron 5y ago
        You don't need to filter out the viruses, you need to filter the aerosol the viruses are sitting in. That is a major plus of Covid, verification (repeatedly) and acceptance of that fact.
        chitowneats 5y ago
        Except that we know now Sars-Cov-2 transmission is airborne. As the aerosol caught in your mask evaporates, the virus sheds into the surrounding air, where it is later contracted by someone else. I think you'll be a little disappointed at the level of "acceptance" of mask wearing & efficacy going forward.