16 ms·

> 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 bo

> 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

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