3 ms·
The critic that they don't reduce droplets or the virus in the air is plain old silly since that's not the reason they're used. They are used to deflect and dis
by oblib 5y ago
The critic that they don't reduce droplets or the virus in the air is plain old silly since that's not the reason they're used. They are used to deflect and disperse the virus.
"Recent CDC research found that desk or table barriers in Georgia elementary schools didn’t correlate with lower infection rates. Mask mandates and ventilation improvements did."
That lack of correlation should be expected. Face shields and Plexiglass panel shields only work to reduce a direct blast of the airborne particulates into your face (eyes, nose, mouth which are points of entry for the virus).
What they did prove is mask and ventilation work, and that too is (and was) common knowledge.
But proving the efficacy of those plexiglass panels and face shields is very easy. Put three people in a well ventilated room, one wearing a face shield, one behind a plexiglass panel, and one not wearing anything and blast a load of spray paint at their face and see who's face it sticks to the most.
I don't think we even need to do that to know the answer.
- frutiger 5y ago> and blast a load of spray paint at their face To borrow a phrase from infosec: that is not the threat model. In other words, this is not what people in a school/workplace/etc are subjected to from other sneezers, which is where these plexiglass barriers are being installed. As such it is protecting against a non-threat.
- Proven 5y ago> But proving the efficacy of those plexiglass panels and face shields is very easy. There's no value in that information because almost no place where it's installed have no way to cost-effectively implement proper ventilation. It's funny how Bloomberg wonders about plexiglas but not about face masks and lockdowns. Plexiglass is one of least problematic measures (not that it shouldn't be optional for private establishments).