3 ms·

Sure, yeah. A simple cloth mask doesn't really protect the wearer; it protects others from the wearer. It slows droplets down as you exhale them. So they trave

Sure, yeah. A simple cloth mask doesn't really protect the wearer; it protects others from the wearer. It slows droplets down as you exhale them. So they travel X feet, instead of X+Y feet. Depending on air currents and other variables the level of protection this offers others will range from "nothing at all" to "some". Obviously, a HEPA filter is orders of magnitude better. But, is there a HEPA filter directly between you and the person next to you in line at the supermarket?

OJFord 5y ago
> A simple cloth mask doesn't really protect the wearer; it protects others from the wearer. Sure. I'd call that 'different' rather than 'better', but I suppose it's subjective. > Obviously, a HEPA filter is orders of magnitude better. You would think, and yet my comment saying so, objecting to 'masks are better than an air filter' (when qualified to ill-fitting cloth as worn by most) is apparently highly objectionable. > But, is there a HEPA filter directly between you and the person next to you in line at the supermarket? Not a comparison I made, but yeah, if I went to a supermarket (I'm not, because I almost entirely had groceries delivered pre-pandemic, so now easily enough entirely) I would wear an FFP3 dust mask rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5. (More than that is probably not justified since fit won't be perfect, some leakage. Industrially etc. where there's a need for greater filtration I expect that's when you have to step up to fully enclosed hoods. I digress..)
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  > Not a comparison I made Sure, but it's the relevant one. > if I went to a supermarket [...] I would wear an FFP3 dust mask rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5. Good. That would be very safe. Ideally everybody would do that. I'll let you think about how feasible that is. I mean, your entire argument seems to be that cloth masks aren't perfect, I guess? They sure aren't. But that's not the claim anybody is making. The evidence-backed claim is that they are better than nothing -- and "doing absolutely nothing" is apparently the hill that hundreds of millions of Americans have chosen to (literally) die upon We are trying to take a step forward from that, via a simple harm-reduction method that almost anybody can afford. Let me ask you something. How effective would a public health measure need to be before you'd endorse it? 1%? 10%? 99%? 100%? There have been 40 million confirmed cases in America, and likely several times that amount in reality. Over half a million deaths. Each single percentage point improvement in prevention represents > 400,000K cases and > 6,000 deaths.

OJFord 5y ago

> A simple cloth mask doesn't really protect the wearer; it protects others from the wearer. Sure. I'd call that 'different' rather than 'better', but I suppose it's subjective. > Obviously, a HEPA filter is orders of magnitude better. You would think, and yet my comment saying so, objecting to 'masks are better than an air filter' (when qualified to ill-fitting cloth as worn by most) is apparently highly objectionable. > But, is there a HEPA filter directly between you and the person next to you in line at the supermarket? Not a comparison I made, but yeah, if I went to a supermarket (I'm not, because I almost entirely had groceries delivered pre-pandemic, so now easily enough entirely) I would wear an FFP3 dust mask rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5. (More than that is probably not justified since fit won't be perfect, some leakage. Industrially etc. where there's a need for greater filtration I expect that's when you have to step up to fully enclosed hoods. I digress..)

JohnBooty 5y ago
> Not a comparison I made Sure, but it's the relevant one. > if I went to a supermarket [...] I would wear an FFP3 dust mask rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5. Good. That would be very safe. Ideally everybody would do that. I'll let you think about how feasible that is. I mean, your entire argument seems to be that cloth masks aren't perfect, I guess? They sure aren't. But that's not the claim anybody is making. The evidence-backed claim is that they are better than nothing -- and "doing absolutely nothing" is apparently the hill that hundreds of millions of Americans have chosen to (literally) die upon We are trying to take a step forward from that, via a simple harm-reduction method that almost anybody can afford. Let me ask you something. How effective would a public health measure need to be before you'd endorse it? 1%? 10%? 99%? 100%? There have been 40 million confirmed cases in America, and likely several times that amount in reality. Over half a million deaths. Each single percentage point improvement in prevention represents > 400,000K cases and > 6,000 deaths.