4 ms·

We know who they are. They're staffing Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Target, Costco, Kroger, etc. by the hundreds of thousands and have been throughout the entire pa

We know who they are. They're staffing Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Target, Costco, Kroger, etc. by the hundreds of thousands and have been throughout the entire pandemic. It's not their little trivial masks that have been protecting them from a daily bombardment of SARS2. It's pretty obvious where to look if we want to know more.

dragontamer 5y ago
> t's not their little trivial masks that have been protecting them from a daily bombardment of SARS2. Are you sure? What if the reduction of viral load, such as social distancing or masks, is what's causing them to have COVID19 resistance? A cotton mask has 60% filtration. An N95 mask has 95% filtration. If you "breath" in 1000 virus particles, someone with a cotton mask would only breath in 400 of them, while the one with N95 would breath in 50 virus particles. I have to imagine that viral load would cause some kind of change. Maybe there is a big difference between breathing in 1000-particles vs breathing in 400-particles. There seems to be no controversy that N95 works (aka: the reduction from 1000 particles down to 50-particles). But cotton masks are still an order-of-magnitude drop (at least, a binary-magnitude).
- coding123 5y ago
  It's been a theory of mine that people wearing better masks ARE getting minuscule amounts of the virus and it preps their body differently than people that get it dumped on them.
- quesera 5y ago
  Indeed, there is a clear connection in published research between viral load and incidence of symptomatic infections. This is why masks "help", which is their job. Do not be misled by those who argue that less than 100% effectiveness means that masks do not "work".
- twofornone 5y ago
  >A cotton mask has 60% filtration. An N95 mask has 95% filtration. If you "breath" in 1000 virus particles, someone with a cotton mask would only breath in 400 of them, while the one with N95 would breath in 50 virus particles Do you have a source for this? Because from what little I've been able to find, filtration efficiency for particulate in the aerosolized size range are practically negligible with cotton masks and even surgical masks. Which makes sense considering that aerosolized particles are around 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than pore sizes in cotton and surgical masks, putting such masks in the realm of security theatre. I suspect studies which show cotton masks having an effect on transmission (in contrast to studies near the start of the pandemic which showed no effect) are failing to consider secondary effects of masking on behavior, namely that masks indirectly remind people of the pandemic and influence their social distancing behavior
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > Do you have a source for this? Because from what little I've been able to find, filtration efficiency for particulate in the aerosolized size range are practically negligible with cotton masks and even surgical masks. Which makes sense considering that aerosolized particles are around 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than pore sizes in cotton and surgical masks, putting such masks in the realm of security theatre. Pretend that you're blowing out a candle: make a small "stream" with your lips and blow as far as you can. When I do so, my stream can go at least as far out as my arm, which I think is ~1.5 feet or ~2feet or something (longer than that, because my breath is still "strong" at the full length of my arm in front of me). Now put a cotton mask on and do the same thing. How far does the stream go? Inches, at best. Note: oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 are all much much smaller than mask fibers. But you'll find that these things behave as a __fluid__, and thus we have a fluid-dynamics question rather than one of physical objects hitting a screen door model. ------ The distance your breath goes when talking is much reduced. Similarly, the "stream" where you draw in more air is also reduced to a smaller distance when you're masked up. ----- Or heck, _do_ blow out a candle. This experiment is like, $2. One dollar for a mask, and a second dollar for a birthday candle. Just measure it yourself: the mask grossly affects the distance that oxygen / CO2 / Nitrogen leaves the body.
    - twofornone 5y ago
      >Now put a cotton mask on and do the same thing. How far does the stream go? Inches, at best. >The distance your breath goes when talking is much reduced. Similarly, the "stream" where you draw in more air is also reduced to a smaller distance when you're masked up. So instead of breath being directed downward from the nose, the aerosolized particles are redirected upward, where they linger for longer? Moreover, the difference in velocity between speech and "blowing out a candle" makes this a bit of a contrived argument. The key here is that these aerosolized particles have very long settling times - so if they are not being filtered by mask media and instead being blown higher upwards with a mask as opposed to without, then as best masks are useless, at worst they are actually counterproductive.
      - 5y ago
burnished 5y ago
What about covid makes you think masks are ineffective when they've been broadly considered effective in the past, and in places where germ theory didn't become a political issue? The screens on my windows don't keep out each and every creeping crawling thing, but it keeps out most. I wouldn't call it trivial either.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  "Miasma theory" led to mask usage, even during the bubonic plague. The technique of masking up is nearly 1000+ years old (and maybe there are older historical examples that I'm unaware of...) The only time "Miasma Theory / Masks" didn't work out was Cholera in the 1800s, because that was from drinking-water instead of an airborne disease (which eventually led to the discovery of microorganisms and modern theories of disease). But there's no denying that COVID19 is airborne. (Sure, we had worries about physical contact in March/April 2020, but today in 2021 we know its airborne). Otherwise, even the primitive middle-age peasant knew masks / miasma theory was effective to prevent the plague from spreading.

dragontamer 5y ago

> t's not their little trivial masks that have been protecting them from a daily bombardment of SARS2. Are you sure? What if the reduction of viral load, such as social distancing or masks, is what's causing them to have COVID19 resistance? A cotton mask has 60% filtration. An N95 mask has 95% filtration. If you "breath" in 1000 virus particles, someone with a cotton mask would only breath in 400 of them, while the one with N95 would breath in 50 virus particles. I have to imagine that viral load would cause some kind of change. Maybe there is a big difference between breathing in 1000-particles vs breathing in 400-particles. There seems to be no controversy that N95 works (aka: the reduction from 1000 particles down to 50-particles). But cotton masks are still an order-of-magnitude drop (at least, a binary-magnitude).

coding123 5y ago
It's been a theory of mine that people wearing better masks ARE getting minuscule amounts of the virus and it preps their body differently than people that get it dumped on them.
quesera 5y ago
Indeed, there is a clear connection in published research between viral load and incidence of symptomatic infections. This is why masks "help", which is their job. Do not be misled by those who argue that less than 100% effectiveness means that masks do not "work".
twofornone 5y ago
>A cotton mask has 60% filtration. An N95 mask has 95% filtration. If you "breath" in 1000 virus particles, someone with a cotton mask would only breath in 400 of them, while the one with N95 would breath in 50 virus particles Do you have a source for this? Because from what little I've been able to find, filtration efficiency for particulate in the aerosolized size range are practically negligible with cotton masks and even surgical masks. Which makes sense considering that aerosolized particles are around 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than pore sizes in cotton and surgical masks, putting such masks in the realm of security theatre. I suspect studies which show cotton masks having an effect on transmission (in contrast to studies near the start of the pandemic which showed no effect) are failing to consider secondary effects of masking on behavior, namely that masks indirectly remind people of the pandemic and influence their social distancing behavior
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > Do you have a source for this? Because from what little I've been able to find, filtration efficiency for particulate in the aerosolized size range are practically negligible with cotton masks and even surgical masks. Which makes sense considering that aerosolized particles are around 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than pore sizes in cotton and surgical masks, putting such masks in the realm of security theatre. Pretend that you're blowing out a candle: make a small "stream" with your lips and blow as far as you can. When I do so, my stream can go at least as far out as my arm, which I think is ~1.5 feet or ~2feet or something (longer than that, because my breath is still "strong" at the full length of my arm in front of me). Now put a cotton mask on and do the same thing. How far does the stream go? Inches, at best. Note: oxygen, nitrogen, and CO2 are all much much smaller than mask fibers. But you'll find that these things behave as a __fluid__, and thus we have a fluid-dynamics question rather than one of physical objects hitting a screen door model. ------ The distance your breath goes when talking is much reduced. Similarly, the "stream" where you draw in more air is also reduced to a smaller distance when you're masked up. ----- Or heck, _do_ blow out a candle. This experiment is like, $2. One dollar for a mask, and a second dollar for a birthday candle. Just measure it yourself: the mask grossly affects the distance that oxygen / CO2 / Nitrogen leaves the body.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    >Now put a cotton mask on and do the same thing. How far does the stream go? Inches, at best. >The distance your breath goes when talking is much reduced. Similarly, the "stream" where you draw in more air is also reduced to a smaller distance when you're masked up. So instead of breath being directed downward from the nose, the aerosolized particles are redirected upward, where they linger for longer? Moreover, the difference in velocity between speech and "blowing out a candle" makes this a bit of a contrived argument. The key here is that these aerosolized particles have very long settling times - so if they are not being filtered by mask media and instead being blown higher upwards with a mask as opposed to without, then as best masks are useless, at worst they are actually counterproductive.
    - 5y ago

burnished 5y ago

What about covid makes you think masks are ineffective when they've been broadly considered effective in the past, and in places where germ theory didn't become a political issue? The screens on my windows don't keep out each and every creeping crawling thing, but it keeps out most. I wouldn't call it trivial either.

dragontamer 5y ago
"Miasma theory" led to mask usage, even during the bubonic plague. The technique of masking up is nearly 1000+ years old (and maybe there are older historical examples that I'm unaware of...) The only time "Miasma Theory / Masks" didn't work out was Cholera in the 1800s, because that was from drinking-water instead of an airborne disease (which eventually led to the discovery of microorganisms and modern theories of disease). But there's no denying that COVID19 is airborne. (Sure, we had worries about physical contact in March/April 2020, but today in 2021 we know its airborne). Otherwise, even the primitive middle-age peasant knew masks / miasma theory was effective to prevent the plague from spreading.