5 ms·

I don't follow this reasoning. An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. The debate is "by how m

I don't follow this reasoning. An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. The debate is "by how much" and without really clear evidence to the contrary, the precautionary principle wins. Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. I'm gobsmacked how it's become such a battleground.

leereeves 5y ago
> An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. Not necessarily. The mask blocks the virus going both ways, so maybe only 10% of the virus particles get inside the mask, but 90% of those that would be exhaled also stay inside the mask. This is not an opinion on whether masks work, just an illustration that it's plausible they don't.
- elmalto 5y ago
  Napkin math would be: 90% of infected person virus stays in 90% of virus does not get in for a healthy person So 1% (10% through * 10% through) of final particles will be inside the mask. Hence roughly 0.9% of particles (90% stays inside of the mask of the healthy person) would stick around by this logic Vs 100% of particles that could enter will enter without any sort of mask
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Even for napkin math we'd need reasonably good approximations, but we're missing a crucial number (how many virus particles are normally exhaled?) and I don't know if 90% blockage is accurate either (I'm just using it as an example because other posts in this thread have used that number).
    - andybak 5y ago
      > but we're missing a crucial number Exactly. We're lacking a crucial number. So wear a mask.
      - dublin 5y ago
        Or refuse, and enhance the herd immunity, which is the only thing that will ever really slow the virus in the first place. (Like the flu and colds, this virus will be with us forever and cannot be eradicated, because unlike smallpox and the like, this one has both animal and human hosts...)
        andybak 5y ago
        I rather think "let's go for herd immunity" is something we need to collectively decide. It's a huge decision and impacts everyone. Like many decisions with collective impact, we rightly restrict the rights of individuals to go their own way on it.
        leereeves 5y ago
        Obviously there isn't collective agreement for a mandate. Are you saying the government should impose a mandate without collectively deciding, or even debating?
        andybak 5y ago
        That points to a tricky, general problem in political theory and one we've struggled with for millenia. I don't have an answer but I do think there's a middle ground between "authoritarian diktat" and "everyone does what the hell they want".
- andybak 5y ago
  Haven't you just agreed with me? The debate is whether they help by 0.001%, 99% or some number inbetween. And until there's strong evidence then we're back to the precautionary principle (or as I like to put it "just shut-up and where your damn mask")
  - leereeves 5y ago
    I agree with you in that I believe they work and, as a matter of personal choice, I followed the precautionary principle and wore a mask until I was vaccinated. But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate. Clear evidence should be required to impose the mandate. And my previous post was not agreeing with you; it implied that masks may work or may make things worse by trapping more virus particles inside the mask. Another post here linked to a study that showed that certain kinds of masks can sometimes be worse than no mask, even ignoring the "trapping" factor, by actually increasing the droplet count in the air.
    - andybak 5y ago
      > But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate. It is in many other realms. Why raise the bar for this? This whole thing feels like whatever the equivalent is of "virtue signalling". Why have some groups decided to be so stubborn about this particular thing? It smacks of some identity thing.
      - dnautics 5y ago
        I can't answer your very leading question, but there are PLENTY of people who wear masks, are vaccinated, and are scared of mandates, and are consistent about "raising the bar" across the board (For things besides COVID). They just don't get as much media coverage, because that position doesn't fit into a digestible narrative in today's zeitgeist.
        andybak 5y ago
matz1 5y ago
>Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience Maybe it is minor inconvenience for you but for me its a huge inconvenience.
- andybak 5y ago
  Why is your experience so different to mine?
  - matz1 5y ago
    Because not everyone the same, do you expect everyone to have same experience ?
    - andybak 5y ago
      I have to confess I suspect our experiences aren't that different. In the same way people can choose to be offended, people seem to have chosen to find this a huge imposition. I actually really dislike wearing a mask and sometimes have a mild panicky feeling of suffocating and have to move to a window. (I get a similar thing snorkeling). But it's no big deal. I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. I understand some people might have really strong psychological reactions and that's why we have mask exemptions. But I don't think that applies to the majority of the people that are claiming wearing a mask is a massive problem for them. I really don't.
      - matz1 5y ago
        >But it's no big deal. It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me. >I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me. I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you. Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people.
makomk 5y ago
There are actually two questions: how much do masks prevent borderline contacts from being infected, and how broad a range of contact do they work over. As far as I can tell the two things are at odds with each other: the shallower the slope of reduced infection vs viral load, the broader the range over which masks can work. (Though of course either way there's still the possibility that most transmission happens outside the range where this has any effect worth mentioning.) The flu-based study some mask proponents were pushing had an order-of-magnitude decrease in viral amount giving maybe a 30% reduction in chance of being infected over the range where this was effective, and obviously very little outside that. That's... not great. Definitely much worse than current vaccines. Though of course Covid isn't flu and we don't have the same level of studies covering it yet.
chlodwig 5y ago
Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store. It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms. It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them. It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be able to see the facial expressions of their teachers or classmates (especially when learning how to read and pronounce words!).
- andybak 5y ago
  I think I captured most of that in my use of the word "usually".
  - chlodwig 5y ago
    No the word "usually" does not capture that at all. I and a lot of other people spend a lot more time at the office, at the gym, at school, at entertainment venues with friends than we spend at grocery stores.
    - andybak 5y ago
      In this sense "usually" applies to enforcement which has plenty of exceptions for the cases you raise. It obviously depends on country and region and the stage of the pandemic, but in the UK there's been plenty of wiggle room at various times.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  Exactly. Nuance is always missing because making nuanced decisions is hard
- Bud 5y ago
  You know what's really a "major inconvenience"? Getting intubated and not being able to breathe well for the rest of your life, assuming you survive at all. You know what's really a "major inconvenience" for kids? Dying, or transmitting covid to their parents, killing them, and then growing up with no parents.
nradov 5y ago
How long are you expecting people to wear masks? What are the exit criteria? It obviously isn't sustainable for most people. The virus is now endemic in the worldwide human population, plus some animal species. It can't be eradicated even with high vaccination rates. It's inevitable that eventually all of us will be exposed. The only question is when. Wearing masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions can be useful under some limited circumstances to avoid overwhelming healthcare systems. But we need to think longer term than just the next few weeks.
- Bud 5y ago
  How would you know whether the virus can be eradicated with high vaccination rates? We haven't achieved high rates. Anywhere. At all. Ever. And of course, we have a century of history of viruses that now do not exist anymore because we eradicated them. With vaccines. So what are you even talking about?
  - nradov 5y ago
    Smallpox was eradicated with a sterilizing vaccine. We don't have one of those for SARS-CoV-2, and there's no prospect of one any time soon. We also know that other mammals can get infected and pass the virus to humans. The bats or pangolins or whatever originally transmitted the virus to humans are still out there somewhere. It is impossible to vaccinate or cull all those animals. Thus it is impossible to eradicate the virus. We need to be realistic and accept that it's here to stay.

leereeves 5y ago

> An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections. Not necessarily. The mask blocks the virus going both ways, so maybe only 10% of the virus particles get inside the mask, but 90% of those that would be exhaled also stay inside the mask. This is not an opinion on whether masks work, just an illustration that it's plausible they don't.

elmalto 5y ago
Napkin math would be: 90% of infected person virus stays in 90% of virus does not get in for a healthy person So 1% (10% through * 10% through) of final particles will be inside the mask. Hence roughly 0.9% of particles (90% stays inside of the mask of the healthy person) would stick around by this logic Vs 100% of particles that could enter will enter without any sort of mask
- leereeves 5y ago
  Even for napkin math we'd need reasonably good approximations, but we're missing a crucial number (how many virus particles are normally exhaled?) and I don't know if 90% blockage is accurate either (I'm just using it as an example because other posts in this thread have used that number).
  - andybak 5y ago
    > but we're missing a crucial number Exactly. We're lacking a crucial number. So wear a mask.
    - dublin 5y ago
      Or refuse, and enhance the herd immunity, which is the only thing that will ever really slow the virus in the first place. (Like the flu and colds, this virus will be with us forever and cannot be eradicated, because unlike smallpox and the like, this one has both animal and human hosts...)
      - andybak 5y ago
        I rather think "let's go for herd immunity" is something we need to collectively decide. It's a huge decision and impacts everyone. Like many decisions with collective impact, we rightly restrict the rights of individuals to go their own way on it.
        leereeves 5y ago
        Obviously there isn't collective agreement for a mandate. Are you saying the government should impose a mandate without collectively deciding, or even debating?
        andybak 5y ago
        That points to a tricky, general problem in political theory and one we've struggled with for millenia. I don't have an answer but I do think there's a middle ground between "authoritarian diktat" and "everyone does what the hell they want".
andybak 5y ago
Haven't you just agreed with me? The debate is whether they help by 0.001%, 99% or some number inbetween. And until there's strong evidence then we're back to the precautionary principle (or as I like to put it "just shut-up and where your damn mask")
- leereeves 5y ago
  I agree with you in that I believe they work and, as a matter of personal choice, I followed the precautionary principle and wore a mask until I was vaccinated. But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate. Clear evidence should be required to impose the mandate. And my previous post was not agreeing with you; it implied that masks may work or may make things worse by trapping more virus particles inside the mask. Another post here linked to a study that showed that certain kinds of masks can sometimes be worse than no mask, even ignoring the "trapping" factor, by actually increasing the droplet count in the air.
  - andybak 5y ago
    > But I don't agree that "the precautionary principle" is sufficient justification for a government mandate. It is in many other realms. Why raise the bar for this? This whole thing feels like whatever the equivalent is of "virtue signalling". Why have some groups decided to be so stubborn about this particular thing? It smacks of some identity thing.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      I can't answer your very leading question, but there are PLENTY of people who wear masks, are vaccinated, and are scared of mandates, and are consistent about "raising the bar" across the board (For things besides COVID). They just don't get as much media coverage, because that position doesn't fit into a digestible narrative in today's zeitgeist.
      - andybak 5y ago

matz1 5y ago

>Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience Maybe it is minor inconvenience for you but for me its a huge inconvenience.

andybak 5y ago
Why is your experience so different to mine?
- matz1 5y ago
  Because not everyone the same, do you expect everyone to have same experience ?
  - andybak 5y ago
    I have to confess I suspect our experiences aren't that different. In the same way people can choose to be offended, people seem to have chosen to find this a huge imposition. I actually really dislike wearing a mask and sometimes have a mild panicky feeling of suffocating and have to move to a window. (I get a similar thing snorkeling). But it's no big deal. I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. I understand some people might have really strong psychological reactions and that's why we have mask exemptions. But I don't think that applies to the majority of the people that are claiming wearing a mask is a massive problem for them. I really don't.
    - matz1 5y ago
      >But it's no big deal. It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me. >I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me. I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you. Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people.

makomk 5y ago

There are actually two questions: how much do masks prevent borderline contacts from being infected, and how broad a range of contact do they work over. As far as I can tell the two things are at odds with each other: the shallower the slope of reduced infection vs viral load, the broader the range over which masks can work. (Though of course either way there's still the possibility that most transmission happens outside the range where this has any effect worth mentioning.) The flu-based study some mask proponents were pushing had an order-of-magnitude decrease in viral amount giving maybe a 30% reduction in chance of being infected over the range where this was effective, and obviously very little outside that. That's... not great. Definitely much worse than current vaccines. Though of course Covid isn't flu and we don't have the same level of studies covering it yet.

chlodwig 5y ago

Wearing masks is usually only a minor inconvenience. It's a minor inconvenience at the grocery store. It's a major inconvenience to wear one at gyms. It's a major inconvenience with regards to socializing with friends (a core human need), I really hate not being able to read other people's facial expressions when I talk to them. It's a major inconvenience to require it at schools. It's horrible for kids not to be able to see the facial expressions of their teachers or classmates (especially when learning how to read and pronounce words!).

andybak 5y ago
I think I captured most of that in my use of the word "usually".
- chlodwig 5y ago
  No the word "usually" does not capture that at all. I and a lot of other people spend a lot more time at the office, at the gym, at school, at entertainment venues with friends than we spend at grocery stores.
  - andybak 5y ago
    In this sense "usually" applies to enforcement which has plenty of exceptions for the cases you raise. It obviously depends on country and region and the stage of the pandemic, but in the UK there's been plenty of wiggle room at various times.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
Exactly. Nuance is always missing because making nuanced decisions is hard
Bud 5y ago
You know what's really a "major inconvenience"? Getting intubated and not being able to breathe well for the rest of your life, assuming you survive at all. You know what's really a "major inconvenience" for kids? Dying, or transmitting covid to their parents, killing them, and then growing up with no parents.

nradov 5y ago

How long are you expecting people to wear masks? What are the exit criteria? It obviously isn't sustainable for most people. The virus is now endemic in the worldwide human population, plus some animal species. It can't be eradicated even with high vaccination rates. It's inevitable that eventually all of us will be exposed. The only question is when. Wearing masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions can be useful under some limited circumstances to avoid overwhelming healthcare systems. But we need to think longer term than just the next few weeks.

Bud 5y ago
How would you know whether the virus can be eradicated with high vaccination rates? We haven't achieved high rates. Anywhere. At all. Ever. And of course, we have a century of history of viruses that now do not exist anymore because we eradicated them. With vaccines. So what are you even talking about?
- nradov 5y ago
  Smallpox was eradicated with a sterilizing vaccine. We don't have one of those for SARS-CoV-2, and there's no prospect of one any time soon. We also know that other mammals can get infected and pass the virus to humans. The bats or pangolins or whatever originally transmitted the virus to humans are still out there somewhere. It is impossible to vaccinate or cull all those animals. Thus it is impossible to eradicate the virus. We need to be realistic and accept that it's here to stay.