4 ms·

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'

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.

4 ms·

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'

by chitowneats 5y ago

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.