3 ms·

Masks with a decent seal work and studies with mannequins show this. But in real life, an airborne disease, massive gaps by the side of your nose, wet cloth, ru

Masks with a decent seal work and studies with mannequins show this. But in real life, an airborne disease, massive gaps by the side of your nose, wet cloth, rules such as wear it to your restaurant table then take off to eat, it's a pathetic exercise at best.

oblio 5y ago
Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protection https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protectio... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 Even bad masks poorly worn are better than no masks, and the effect is statistically significant. Also reducing the areas in which there is unmitigated exposure is a good thing, not a bad thing.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. No need for that, at all. From [1]: > A recent British Medical Journal review looked at six, fairly porcine, studies concerning mask-wearing and estimated an impressive 53% reduction in risk. But the single randomised controlled trial estimated the smallest effect: a reduction of about 18% (-23% to 46%) in Sars-CoV-2 infections. The “heaviest” studies, an analysis of US states and a survey of about 8,000 Chinese adults in early 2020, observed rather than experimented and its editorial highlights the risks of confounding variables influencing both wearing masks and infections and the impossibility of disentangling the effects of measures fluctuating simultaneously. Indeed, this review found an identical 53% reduction from handwashing. There is an introduction of Spiegelhalther and Masters given here[2]. It's well worth reading that BMJ article, btw. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermect... [2] https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers
  - swader999 5y ago
    These are all muted by omicron that has an R7-R10. Sure, wearing a Helmut is safer but if you hit something at 90 km/hr does it matter?
    - brigandish 5y ago
      So that you may be identifiable? But you're right, so many of the arguments for masks don't hold up to the context they're used in, whether that's for high Rº or untrained non-medical professionals, type of mask, public use, (probably) aerosolised virus… the list goes on.
- swader999 5y ago
  That study proves exactly what I said. It describes an ideal situation where people are wearing well fitting medical grade or better masks with a virus as transmissible as Delta.

oblio 5y ago

Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protection https://www.mpg.de/17916867/coronavirus-masks-risk-protectio... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8 Even bad masks poorly worn are better than no masks, and the effect is statistically significant. Also reducing the areas in which there is unmitigated exposure is a good thing, not a bad thing.

brigandish 5y ago
> Gee, I wonder if anyone thought of testing conditions similar to real life. Nah, nobody did, because everyone is stupid. No need for that, at all. From [1]: > A recent British Medical Journal review looked at six, fairly porcine, studies concerning mask-wearing and estimated an impressive 53% reduction in risk. But the single randomised controlled trial estimated the smallest effect: a reduction of about 18% (-23% to 46%) in Sars-CoV-2 infections. The “heaviest” studies, an analysis of US states and a survey of about 8,000 Chinese adults in early 2020, observed rather than experimented and its editorial highlights the risks of confounding variables influencing both wearing masks and infections and the impossibility of disentangling the effects of measures fluctuating simultaneously. Indeed, this review found an identical 53% reduction from handwashing. There is an introduction of Spiegelhalther and Masters given here[2]. It's well worth reading that BMJ article, btw. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermectin-mask-wearing-quality-of-evidence-matters https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2021/nov/28/ivermect... [2] https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers https://statsandstories.net/media1/covid-by-the-numbers
- swader999 5y ago
  These are all muted by omicron that has an R7-R10. Sure, wearing a Helmut is safer but if you hit something at 90 km/hr does it matter?
  - brigandish 5y ago
    So that you may be identifiable? But you're right, so many of the arguments for masks don't hold up to the context they're used in, whether that's for high Rº or untrained non-medical professionals, type of mask, public use, (probably) aerosolised virus… the list goes on.
swader999 5y ago
That study proves exactly what I said. It describes an ideal situation where people are wearing well fitting medical grade or better masks with a virus as transmissible as Delta.