3 ms·

> You actually never needed to wear a mask outside. This claim is patently false. Even though outside spaces are safer than indoors, it's still possible to spr

by rualca 5y ago

> You actually never needed to wear a mask outside. This claim is patently false. Even though outside spaces are safer than indoors, it's still possible to spread covid-19 outdoors, moreso if you do not respect social distancing. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-55680305 https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-55680305 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/safe-activities-during-covid19/art-20489385 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... It seems that anti-maskers grab the claim that masks are not necessary if you're sitting quietly at a table on a plaza on a sunny day while preserving the min >2m social distancing, but completely disregard all other scenarios such as the journey to said plaza and unexpectedly finding yourself in high-risk scenarios while you move around. To put things in perspective, there are documented cases where COVID spread through person's that stopped to chat outdoors while not wearing a mask. What makes this sort of argument regarding the use of mask particularly dangerous is that it starts with a premise based on a very specific scenario combining key factors that are known to be safe (i.e., sit outside without a mask on a sunny day while preserving social distancing) but ends up trying to justify discarding each and every key safety factor (social distancing while outdoors in sunny, hot days, and even the need to wear a mask while going to a public place). Lastly, although wearing a mask is important to keep you from catching COVID (or any airborne respiratory disease) the main goal of wearing a mask is to ensure that asymptomatic people (and specially symptomatic people) don't unwittingly spread the virus.

prohobo 5y ago
This claim is patently false. Even though M95 masks were found to be beneficial against respiratory viruses in a clinical environment, disposable or cloth masks haven't - and currently real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due to all the other measures that go along with mask mandates. https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-%20review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 It seems that pro-maskers vastly overestimate the efficacy of mask wearing, especially of the kinds of masks most commonly worn in public. This over-exaggerated focus on mask wearing disregards all the other factors that contribute to lowering risk in all scenarios. To put things in perspective, there are documented cases of people going blind from COVID while indoors. This is a bullshit point, and has no statistical bearing, but it's true. What makes this sort of argument regarding the use of masks particularly dangerous is that it is only about 50% true, but treated as if it were gospel and everyone who doubts the policies is branded as dangerous by the people in power. Lastly, although wearing a mask is not likely very important (though likely somewhat beneficial!) to keep you from catching COVID (or any airborne respiratory disease) the main goal of wearing a mask is to enforce conformity through social cues, thereby treating people like cattle and not allowing any reasonable discussion or nuanced approaches to better solve problems during the pandemic.
- zamalek 5y ago
  > This claim is patently false. [...] real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due "Patently false" is vastly different to "unsubstantiated." In addition, here is an entire page of studies substantiating mask efficacy: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
  - prohobo 5y ago
    The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. No one is doubting mask efficacy, just their degree of efficacy. All of the studies shown do not justify mandating the use of cloth or disposable masks outdoors, or even indoors. They all show that people should be wearing M95s or better if they want substantive protection. What you're suggesting is akin to wearing gloves in public - which while probably somewhat safer, is not really a key driver of stopping spread. What's worrying is that not only are your arguments heavily flawed, but we can extrapolate 99% of your political views just by looking at one of your scientific takes. For anyone wondering, no I'm not a Republican.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and one which flies in the face of reason and reality. It's widely known that basic and low-effort protective measures such as social distancing, washing hands and wearing facial masks, are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19 and other airborne respiratory diseases. The point was never that these basic, low-effort measures are not full-proof. The whole point is that they are effective, they are demonstrably effective, and they require little to no effort to implement. For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.
      - deleted 5y ago

by rualca 5y ago

prohobo 5y ago

This claim is patently false. Even though M95 masks were found to be beneficial against respiratory viruses in a clinical environment, disposable or cloth masks haven't - and currently real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due to all the other measures that go along with mask mandates. https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-%20review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 It seems that pro-maskers vastly overestimate the efficacy of mask wearing, especially of the kinds of masks most commonly worn in public. This over-exaggerated focus on mask wearing disregards all the other factors that contribute to lowering risk in all scenarios. To put things in perspective, there are documented cases of people going blind from COVID while indoors. This is a bullshit point, and has no statistical bearing, but it's true. What makes this sort of argument regarding the use of masks particularly dangerous is that it is only about 50% true, but treated as if it were gospel and everyone who doubts the policies is branded as dangerous by the people in power. Lastly, although wearing a mask is not likely very important (though likely somewhat beneficial!) to keep you from catching COVID (or any airborne respiratory disease) the main goal of wearing a mask is to enforce conformity through social cues, thereby treating people like cattle and not allowing any reasonable discussion or nuanced approaches to better solve problems during the pandemic.

zamalek 5y ago
> This claim is patently false. [...] real-world testing of mask efficacy is nearly impossible due "Patently false" is vastly different to "unsubstantiated." In addition, here is an entire page of studies substantiating mask efficacy: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article
- prohobo 5y ago
  The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. No one is doubting mask efficacy, just their degree of efficacy. All of the studies shown do not justify mandating the use of cloth or disposable masks outdoors, or even indoors. They all show that people should be wearing M95s or better if they want substantive protection. What you're suggesting is akin to wearing gloves in public - which while probably somewhat safer, is not really a key driver of stopping spread. What's worrying is that not only are your arguments heavily flawed, but we can extrapolate 99% of your political views just by looking at one of your scientific takes. For anyone wondering, no I'm not a Republican.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > The point was to show that the OP has a false-confidence in their arguments that could easily be countered by more nuanced takes on mask wearing. That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts, and one which flies in the face of reason and reality. It's widely known that basic and low-effort protective measures such as social distancing, washing hands and wearing facial masks, are effective in reducing the spread of covid-19 and other airborne respiratory diseases. The point was never that these basic, low-effort measures are not full-proof. The whole point is that they are effective, they are demonstrably effective, and they require little to no effort to implement. For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.
    - deleted 5y ago