5 ms·

> “surgical” masks used actually contained a blown fiber layer, like N95s, and passed the 95% filtration level when tested. > The study’s authors found that su

> “surgical” masks used actually contained a blown fiber layer, like N95s, and passed the 95% filtration level when tested. > The study’s authors found that surgical masks — but not cloth masks — reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in villages where the research team distributed face masks and promoted their use. West coast city: 90% of the people I see around wear useless cloth masks. Borders on criminal that we pretend the mask-as-virtue-statement circus we are currently undergoing has any benefit other than reduced oxygen flow.

mike00632 5y ago
We've gone from quoting a part of the article leaving out the part that discusses cloth mask efficacy to full blown denial of what the study concludes about cloth masks, regurgitation tired old anti-mask rhetoric.
- angelzen 5y ago
  I'm sorry, please help me: where does the study say cloth masks help?
  - mike00632 5y ago
    "Material difference The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth..."
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Consider taking it up with Lynne Peeples. The very subtitle of the piece is 'surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short', I have no idea why she thinks '11% drop in risk' is 'highly protective', but '5% drop' is 'falling short'. Either way the numbers appear marginal at best. Edit: Fundamentally I have an issue with any definition of risk that bounds the measure to a short time frame. For all we know the mask intervention may slow the spread speed by a small factor, but were we to measure over a year (or even longer) we might observe the same total number of infections: the virus is going to infect everyone susceptible, only at a slightly slower pace.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        1. Based on the size of the study there are thresholds for statistical significance. 2. Only a portion of the people were even wearing masks. A few people wore masks and the risk of infection dropped by a few percent. Declaring masks don't work because a couple people wore them yet the entire population didn't see a complete decline in infection is illogical and dishonest. 3. The study not being able to conclude in a statistically significant way that cloth masks prevent infection is completely different from concluding that cloth masks are worthless. Your aversion to masks is completely a reflection of your bias and not supported by this study.
        timr 5y ago
        > A few people wore masks ...there were 54,000 people in the cloth mask villages, and 106,000 people in the surgical mask villages. Compliance was over 40%. That's more than "a few people".
    - timr 5y ago
      The difference in the cloth arm wasn't even close to statistically significant (p=0.540). It was noise.
      - mike00632 5y ago
        Yes, and as I wrote in another comment, that is completely different from concluding that cloth masks don't work. You're drawing a conclusion that the data doesn't support.
        timr 5y ago
        > You're drawing a conclusion that the data doesn't support. I'm telling you the conclusions of the paper. Your faith in masks is an entirely separate question that is clearly unaffected by the data here, because it requires proving a negative. Is it possible that cloth masks actually work, and this huge study failed to find any significant effect? Anything is possible, but the results here are indistinguishable from noise, and don't support the claim. And with every RCT that gets published showing negligible effect from community masking, the probability that the claim is true gets smaller.
HWR_14 5y ago
> s any benefit other than reduced oxygen flow. Oxygen is smaller and easier to pass the filters than COVID-19 particles. It's possible not to have reduced oxygen flow but protect against the virus, but physically impossible to do the reverse as you suggest.
- angelzen 5y ago
  That's nice in theory. In practice I have reduced lung capacity and start suffocating after 15 mins of N95. What happens is that the whole air flow is harder to push around, and there is so long one can force breath. I presume that people with healthier lungs have an easier time dealing with it, but I find it very hard to believe the impact is zero. For fun, I just googled 'N95 reduced oxygen flow' and found this pearl from Stanford as the top result: https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-face-masks-can-reduce-oxygen-getting-to-the-lungs-and-bloodstream https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-face-masks-can-r... > Myth: Face masks can reduce oxygen getting to the lungs and bloodstream > ... Some masks mean you have to put more effort into breathing if you wear them for a long time. > ... If worn for many hours without a break, an N95 mask might potentially affect oxygen levels but likely not to a dangerous extent, especially in people who are healthy. 'put more effort into breathing' aka 'suffocating at normal breath patterns'. Oh, and it actually does reduce the oxygen levels, but rest assured citizen, it is nothing to worry about. It's just a myth. There is a word I'm looking for here, miss, misty, aha, misinformation.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I never said masks couldn't affect airflow and thus oxygen. I said a mask cannot affect airflow and thus oxygen more than it affects COVID. That is, the "masks do nothing to prevent COVID but cut off air supply" arguments are dumb. Personally, I don't consider that reduced airflow relevant to me or anyone I know. The people with reduced lung capacity do complain about having trouble after 15 minutes, but continue to wear them. In fact, people with reduced lung function are the most aggressive mask wearers I know.
    - angelzen 5y ago

mike00632 5y ago

We've gone from quoting a part of the article leaving out the part that discusses cloth mask efficacy to full blown denial of what the study concludes about cloth masks, regurgitation tired old anti-mask rhetoric.

angelzen 5y ago
I'm sorry, please help me: where does the study say cloth masks help?
- mike00632 5y ago
  "Material difference The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth..."
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Consider taking it up with Lynne Peeples. The very subtitle of the piece is 'surgical masks are highly protective, but cloth masks fall short', I have no idea why she thinks '11% drop in risk' is 'highly protective', but '5% drop' is 'falling short'. Either way the numbers appear marginal at best. Edit: Fundamentally I have an issue with any definition of risk that bounds the measure to a short time frame. For all we know the mask intervention may slow the spread speed by a small factor, but were we to measure over a year (or even longer) we might observe the same total number of infections: the virus is going to infect everyone susceptible, only at a slightly slower pace.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      1. Based on the size of the study there are thresholds for statistical significance. 2. Only a portion of the people were even wearing masks. A few people wore masks and the risk of infection dropped by a few percent. Declaring masks don't work because a couple people wore them yet the entire population didn't see a complete decline in infection is illogical and dishonest. 3. The study not being able to conclude in a statistically significant way that cloth masks prevent infection is completely different from concluding that cloth masks are worthless. Your aversion to masks is completely a reflection of your bias and not supported by this study.
      - timr 5y ago
        > A few people wore masks ...there were 54,000 people in the cloth mask villages, and 106,000 people in the surgical mask villages. Compliance was over 40%. That's more than "a few people".
  - timr 5y ago
    The difference in the cloth arm wasn't even close to statistically significant (p=0.540). It was noise.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Yes, and as I wrote in another comment, that is completely different from concluding that cloth masks don't work. You're drawing a conclusion that the data doesn't support.
      - timr 5y ago
        > You're drawing a conclusion that the data doesn't support. I'm telling you the conclusions of the paper. Your faith in masks is an entirely separate question that is clearly unaffected by the data here, because it requires proving a negative. Is it possible that cloth masks actually work, and this huge study failed to find any significant effect? Anything is possible, but the results here are indistinguishable from noise, and don't support the claim. And with every RCT that gets published showing negligible effect from community masking, the probability that the claim is true gets smaller.

HWR_14 5y ago

> s any benefit other than reduced oxygen flow. Oxygen is smaller and easier to pass the filters than COVID-19 particles. It's possible not to have reduced oxygen flow but protect against the virus, but physically impossible to do the reverse as you suggest.

angelzen 5y ago
That's nice in theory. In practice I have reduced lung capacity and start suffocating after 15 mins of N95. What happens is that the whole air flow is harder to push around, and there is so long one can force breath. I presume that people with healthier lungs have an easier time dealing with it, but I find it very hard to believe the impact is zero. For fun, I just googled 'N95 reduced oxygen flow' and found this pearl from Stanford as the top result: https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-face-masks-can-reduce-oxygen-getting-to-the-lungs-and-bloodstream https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-face-masks-can-r... > Myth: Face masks can reduce oxygen getting to the lungs and bloodstream > ... Some masks mean you have to put more effort into breathing if you wear them for a long time. > ... If worn for many hours without a break, an N95 mask might potentially affect oxygen levels but likely not to a dangerous extent, especially in people who are healthy. 'put more effort into breathing' aka 'suffocating at normal breath patterns'. Oh, and it actually does reduce the oxygen levels, but rest assured citizen, it is nothing to worry about. It's just a myth. There is a word I'm looking for here, miss, misty, aha, misinformation.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I never said masks couldn't affect airflow and thus oxygen. I said a mask cannot affect airflow and thus oxygen more than it affects COVID. That is, the "masks do nothing to prevent COVID but cut off air supply" arguments are dumb. Personally, I don't consider that reduced airflow relevant to me or anyone I know. The people with reduced lung capacity do complain about having trouble after 15 minutes, but continue to wear them. In fact, people with reduced lung function are the most aggressive mask wearers I know.
  - angelzen 5y ago