3 ms·

yes, distancing does most of the work in most common situations. a mask can only work when conversing closely for a time indoors. otherwise masks do nothing, no

yes, distancing does most of the work in most common situations. a mask can only work when conversing closely for a time indoors. otherwise masks do nothing, no matter the filtration rate of the mask, because there's nothing to filter in the first place. distancing is a more universal and sensible mitigation (we're distanced from nearly all of the world population all the time). this is why mask mandates, as currently constructed, are misguided and ignorant at best. the mandate should be to wear a mask when you're intimately sharing air (within ~3ft/1m) with another person indoors. the reason we don't have that sort of mandate is because it would mean we'd have to wear them around friends and family rather than those gross strangers who are out to kill us with their ignorance and malice (they're not). this is also why the current mandates for restaurants (and most retail) makes no sense, as we're only going to be intimately sharing air with our friends and family in those places anyway.

YZF 5y ago
Aren't you sharing air with others in any common indoors space? I thought that was the whole aerosols debate that's basically settled by now, i.e. virus can stay suspending in the air for extended periods. With the Delta variant's characteristics this is also a much bigger problem (i.e. the same indoor space that might have been ok is no longer ok). There were early studies with the less infectious variants that showed how people situated far from each other in indoors spaces infect each other. So the mandate for masking in any common indoor space seems to make a lot of sense.
- clairity 5y ago
  no, it's not "settled science" like that. the virus must traverse a gauntlet of death before reaching your juicy mucus membranes, including dessication and all manner of external forces that will inactivate it in the meantime. it falls apart in droves outside the body. you need constant exposure to warm, moist, infected exhaust so that the virus has trillions of chances of taking hold in your respiratory system, and it likely takes millions of virus particles making it across for enough to survive the immune response gauntlet inside the body. that a few virus particles in controlled tests miraculously manage to exist for a few minutes in the air has no bearing on real-world transmission rates. that's why a mask can work (better than distancing) in that one particular situation, but distancing is a better general mitigation. by the way, those early "studies" on long indoor spread were conjecture-based (e.g., using models), not rigorous science, and have failed to replicate.
  - YZF 5y ago
    I'm not talking about model studies. I am talking about case studies, like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronaviru... Also: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-reinforces-role-of-aerosols-in-sars-cov-2-spread-68094 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-rein... Even early on with the Diamond Princess you've seen wide spread of the virus despite passengers being largely confined to their cabins. There were multiple other examples. We also know the Delta variant is more infectious. I'm not saying distancing doesn't work. Even if you assume the virus is spread in the indoors air it's not a terrible bad assumptions to think that a person emitting virus continuously will have a higher concentration of virus in their immediate vicinity. So sure, it's layers of defense. The mask is also about limiting the emissions in the first place and distancing indoors is not always practical in public busy spaces. But sure. It is not settled science. Science takes time. If your point is that we don't understand exactly what happens then sure, but we rarely do for anything in this field anyways.
    - clairity 5y ago
      the diamond princess is especially poor evidence, as it was an after-the-fact investigation (with heavy motivation to find something and gain early notoriety), not a study per se. what likely happened was that there were multiple social infection vectors (not of the long-distance air variety but more the drunk chatting variety) and the crew and passengers distorted their testimony to limit their own liability exposure. the diamond princess case was also the source of the "virus lives for weeks outside the body" mistruth because pcr tests readily amplify partial, dead viral dna/rna just as well as live virus (it has to be 'killed' to be amplified, after all). but yes, viral concentration is higher near an infected person, but it falls off rapidly (to something like the 3rd power iirc) with distance and time, especially the latter of which being why incidental exposure in public places is unlikely to be material. it's also something a small minority of people have at a given time (on average less than 1% of those around you). it's mainly socializing for extended periods of time where masks can potentially help reduce infection (that's when we're also most likely to let our guard down). i'd go so far as to posit that sociability (via variables like social graph size/breadth) is likely more correlated to infection than (the lack of) mask usage.

YZF 5y ago

Aren't you sharing air with others in any common indoors space? I thought that was the whole aerosols debate that's basically settled by now, i.e. virus can stay suspending in the air for extended periods. With the Delta variant's characteristics this is also a much bigger problem (i.e. the same indoor space that might have been ok is no longer ok). There were early studies with the less infectious variants that showed how people situated far from each other in indoors spaces infect each other. So the mandate for masking in any common indoor space seems to make a lot of sense.

clairity 5y ago
no, it's not "settled science" like that. the virus must traverse a gauntlet of death before reaching your juicy mucus membranes, including dessication and all manner of external forces that will inactivate it in the meantime. it falls apart in droves outside the body. you need constant exposure to warm, moist, infected exhaust so that the virus has trillions of chances of taking hold in your respiratory system, and it likely takes millions of virus particles making it across for enough to survive the immune response gauntlet inside the body. that a few virus particles in controlled tests miraculously manage to exist for a few minutes in the air has no bearing on real-world transmission rates. that's why a mask can work (better than distancing) in that one particular situation, but distancing is a better general mitigation. by the way, those early "studies" on long indoor spread were conjecture-based (e.g., using models), not rigorous science, and have failed to replicate.
- YZF 5y ago
  I'm not talking about model studies. I am talking about case studies, like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronaviru... Also: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-reinforces-role-of-aerosols-in-sars-cov-2-spread-68094 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-rein... Even early on with the Diamond Princess you've seen wide spread of the virus despite passengers being largely confined to their cabins. There were multiple other examples. We also know the Delta variant is more infectious. I'm not saying distancing doesn't work. Even if you assume the virus is spread in the indoors air it's not a terrible bad assumptions to think that a person emitting virus continuously will have a higher concentration of virus in their immediate vicinity. So sure, it's layers of defense. The mask is also about limiting the emissions in the first place and distancing indoors is not always practical in public busy spaces. But sure. It is not settled science. Science takes time. If your point is that we don't understand exactly what happens then sure, but we rarely do for anything in this field anyways.
  - clairity 5y ago
    the diamond princess is especially poor evidence, as it was an after-the-fact investigation (with heavy motivation to find something and gain early notoriety), not a study per se. what likely happened was that there were multiple social infection vectors (not of the long-distance air variety but more the drunk chatting variety) and the crew and passengers distorted their testimony to limit their own liability exposure. the diamond princess case was also the source of the "virus lives for weeks outside the body" mistruth because pcr tests readily amplify partial, dead viral dna/rna just as well as live virus (it has to be 'killed' to be amplified, after all). but yes, viral concentration is higher near an infected person, but it falls off rapidly (to something like the 3rd power iirc) with distance and time, especially the latter of which being why incidental exposure in public places is unlikely to be material. it's also something a small minority of people have at a given time (on average less than 1% of those around you). it's mainly socializing for extended periods of time where masks can potentially help reduce infection (that's when we're also most likely to let our guard down). i'd go so far as to posit that sociability (via variables like social graph size/breadth) is likely more correlated to infection than (the lack of) mask usage.