7 ms·

Why isn’t there more protection shown? Is it people not wearing the masks well? Or not wearing them consistently? One thing I’ve thought was ludicrous since th

Why isn’t there more protection shown? Is it people not wearing the masks well? Or not wearing them consistently? One thing I’ve thought was ludicrous since the beginning of the pandemic was the idea that you should mask in a restaurant “except while eating.” That’s comically stupid. I understand we love our restaurants and don’t want them all going out of business (and that huge workforce being unemployed!), but there’s no point fooling yourself, if you aren’t going to wear the mask the whole time when you go somewhere then there’s really no point.

irishloop 5y ago
But risk isn't a 1/0 binary. Every moment you are wearing a mask changes your risk. Spending 1 hour in a restaurant vs 10 hours in a restaurant. It all adds up and it all matters. So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. But not as much as simply not wearing a mask the entire time you're in a restaurant, moving around, getting closer to people and different areas of the restaurant, which probably all have variable particles in the air, etc.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  Risk isn't binary. But constantly taking your mask on and off has risks of its own from touching and rubbing. Similar to not touching your face with your hands to avoid germs, you should not be touching your mask frequently.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  > So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. I don’t think that’s usually how it works. A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air. Taking your mask off while you eat is going to raise the risk for everybody around you—unless you use an N95 mask or similar equipment (and use it properly), what your mask does is mostly in fact protecting bystanders from asymptomatic COVID that you may have acquired by restricting outgoing airflow and virions within. Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask. Unsurprisingly, masks is the easiest and cheapest measure to be taken, compared to e.g. auditing and upgrading air circulation infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, in many cultures people who think that the mask protects them and don’t know about asymptomatic COVID choose not to wear a mask because they bravely don’t care if they get sick. Unsurprisingly, for the rest of us there’s very little point in being the one-in-ten person wearing a mask in what is a fluid exchange fest anyway. Unsurprisingly, as a result people tend to not wear masks if they can get away with it, and restaurant owners and other people in charge of enforcing the measure on their territory would instruct staff to let things slip rather than alienate their patrons over a seemingly useless measure. Meanwhile, masks are not free. Both in terms of money, and in terms of wellbeing. A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing. One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation (and if you do rotate your mask, an argument could be made that reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though I’m not sure if there were studies to support or refute that). Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    >A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air. That applies for cloth masks and alike. N95/PFF2 is a protective gear and should filter ~95% of particles where N99/PFF3 is ~99% if given a perfect fit. Beards and other stuff can reduce the efficiency to ~30% though. > Meanwhile, masks are not free. But they are not expensive and can be rotated. > A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing. Only if you already have difficulty breathing. Studies show no impact on blood oxygenation whatsoever due to the usage of masks in normal situations. What they cause is discomfort due to retention of breath humidity and heat. It sucks to wear a PFF3 while doing intensive exercise, > One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation. Any viruses that accumulate on a mask you would be breathing otherwise. > ...reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though. That makes sense. The nose epithelial cells are the 1st line of defense against airborne pathogens. By reducing our exposure we are reducing the efficiency of those cells. > Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask. True. Where I live masks are not enforced, we are in the summer and >90% of those I see are not using it. But the few that are still using it are doing it properly. > Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security. I agree with you but not because I don't think masks work. It's just that people think that now that they have took the jab and put the mask they can do whatever they want including staying for hours in a fully occupied and closed room where a guy is coughing non-stop. It's just that people are stupid and irresponsible. When I studied workplace safety and health we learned that protective gear is the last measure you adopt. If you have place where exists a risk of people falling you first should attempt to eliminate the risk and improve the ergonomics of the place, like installing guardrails. If that isn't possible you enact administrative policies like forbidding from transiting in the dangerous place unless they have authorization and a reason to be there. And only then you provide protective gear for those.
    - 5y ago
- nradov 5y ago
  Over the long term your risk of exposure approaches 1 regardless of whether you wear a mask in restaurants. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
InitialLastName 5y ago
I don't know (and I'm not defending this validation, as I take issue with a number of premises) but my understanding of the justification is that restaurants can relatively easily space out/put dividers up between their tables (such that risk of transmission between parties at different tables is lower), but that no such accommodation can be made easily for the aisles, bathrooms, bar, and other intermediate spaces. Thus the rule, which around here is "wear a mask if you aren't seated at your table". Given how restaurants around here are still packing people in, though, one has to assume that the initial table-spacing premise is compromised, undermining the whole endeavor.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The dividers are pretty silly if the virus is as airborne as is now believed.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    They are. But limiting the number of people you’ve been potentially exposed to to just the people directly next to you is obviously safer than being exposed to every person between your table and the bathroom/exit.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      If it's airborne, you're exposed to all of the people in the facility, and all of the people in it within the last few hours. The dividers likely make minimal if any difference.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        sigh I didn’t say that the dividers help. I in fact explicitly agreed with you that they’re useless. That being said, the virus isn’t magically going to fill the entire space equally from one infected person. There is a distance factor involved, and the closer you are unmasked the higher your risk. So only unmasking at your table cuts your risk pool down to the tables immediately proximate to you, rather than everyone you walked by, and anyone you shared the bathroom with. It’s not as safe as staying home, but it’s better than being unmasked the entire time. Oh, and the risk isn’t going to hang around hours after the fact, unless if you’re in a completely unventilated space. Commercial restaurants change their air over a recommended 8 times an hour.
j2bax 5y ago
Standing in a crowded waiting area is ≠ sitting at a spaced out table maybe with a divider between you and the other tables.
- bmeski 5y ago
  The particles are floating around in the air. They don’t hit the glass and turn around and go home, they continue to float and a draft or whatever will disperse the particles throughout the room. Who gets to decide what size interior is ok? Or what crowded is? It’s all arbitrary and you all fell for it. Just let omicron spread, accept it’s another seasonal flu, and move the fuck on.
  - j2bax 5y ago
    To be fair, I wasn't referring to my own personal risk tolerance but I guess trying to explain a seemingly arbitrary rule... I haven't eaten at a sit down for the last two years because I have small children and expecting them to follow any sort of strict masking protocol is unrealistic. I also have multiple close family members who work in ICU and healthcare and I really don't think you want Omicron to spread faster than it needs to... That's an extremely shallow selfish mindset. Edit: Just wanted to share an article from yesterday on the state of hospitals. I have friends/family that are super badass just like you, until they get in a car accident and need a bed at the ER. All the sudden shit gets a little more real and personal... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/01/11/1071568846/u-s-covid-hospitalizations-hit-new-record-high-raising-risks-for-patients https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/01/11/1071568...
- notabee 5y ago
  Here's a good infographic from a country with a seemingly better public information response. It talks about both droplets and aerosols. Simply put: dividers don't help much with aerosols, or may concentrate the particles from multiple users of the same space. http://aerosol.nsysu.edu.tw/en/scopes/108 http://aerosol.nsysu.edu.tw/en/scopes/108
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ashtonkem 5y ago
I’ve never really understood why people are confused by the eating thing. The point is obviously harm reduction, not harm elimination. If you’re going to eat out, it’s obviously better to not get exposed to every single person you walked by when you’re not doing an activity that’s impossible with a mask on. This has always been extremely obvious to me, and a natural consequence of trying to keep restaurants open and case loads down. Now at various points I’ve wondered why restaurants were open, but that’s a different discussion.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >The point is obviously harm reduction, not harm elimination. Or the point is theater. If you're going to have indoor dining--and most places have made that decision--people can't wear masks when they're eating and drinking. And the relatively small number of times I've been eating inside it's pretty obvious that wearing a mask between the door and your table almost certainly makes a negligible difference in risk.
nomel 5y ago
I’ve always assumed the virus can enter the body through the eyes, who’s tear ducts lead to the nasal passages.
- aaronharnly 5y ago
  Yes. Some physicians I know now wear goggles, or glasses with foam fittings kind of like swim goggles.
psychlops 5y ago
It's an effective way to continue to collect tax revenue while maintaining the illusion of control. Don't point it out or it will spawn a series of conversations where people endlessly divide and multiply statistically negligible percentages.
peder 5y ago
Could it be something as simple as ignoring that we're all touching our masks, our clothing, our eyes. Basically, did we optimize one part of the problem while ignoring all others and the net effect is basically zero?

irishloop 5y ago

But risk isn't a 1/0 binary. Every moment you are wearing a mask changes your risk. Spending 1 hour in a restaurant vs 10 hours in a restaurant. It all adds up and it all matters. So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. But not as much as simply not wearing a mask the entire time you're in a restaurant, moving around, getting closer to people and different areas of the restaurant, which probably all have variable particles in the air, etc.

xboxnolifes 5y ago
Risk isn't binary. But constantly taking your mask on and off has risks of its own from touching and rubbing. Similar to not touching your face with your hands to avoid germs, you should not be touching your mask frequently.
strogonoff 5y ago
> So yeah, taking your mask off while you eat is definitely going to raise your risk. I don’t think that’s usually how it works. A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air. Taking your mask off while you eat is going to raise the risk for everybody around you—unless you use an N95 mask or similar equipment (and use it properly), what your mask does is mostly in fact protecting bystanders from asymptomatic COVID that you may have acquired by restricting outgoing airflow and virions within. Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask. Unsurprisingly, masks is the easiest and cheapest measure to be taken, compared to e.g. auditing and upgrading air circulation infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, in many cultures people who think that the mask protects them and don’t know about asymptomatic COVID choose not to wear a mask because they bravely don’t care if they get sick. Unsurprisingly, for the rest of us there’s very little point in being the one-in-ten person wearing a mask in what is a fluid exchange fest anyway. Unsurprisingly, as a result people tend to not wear masks if they can get away with it, and restaurant owners and other people in charge of enforcing the measure on their territory would instruct staff to let things slip rather than alienate their patrons over a seemingly useless measure. Meanwhile, masks are not free. Both in terms of money, and in terms of wellbeing. A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing. One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation (and if you do rotate your mask, an argument could be made that reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though I’m not sure if there were studies to support or refute that). Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  >A regular mask is good at “curbing the fanout” so to speak, but not so great at filtering incoming air. That applies for cloth masks and alike. N95/PFF2 is a protective gear and should filter ~95% of particles where N99/PFF3 is ~99% if given a perfect fit. Beards and other stuff can reduce the efficiency to ~30% though. > Meanwhile, masks are not free. But they are not expensive and can be rotated. > A properly worn mask necessarily obstructs breathing. Only if you already have difficulty breathing. Studies show no impact on blood oxygenation whatsoever due to the usage of masks in normal situations. What they cause is discomfort due to retention of breath humidity and heat. It sucks to wear a PFF3 while doing intensive exercise, > One risks becoming infected by their own mask which accumulates virions in circulation. Any viruses that accumulate on a mask you would be breathing otherwise. > ...reduced exposure to viruses long-term may weaken the immune system—though. That makes sense. The nose epithelial cells are the 1st line of defense against airborne pathogens. By reducing our exposure we are reducing the efficiency of those cells. > Now consider real life, where not everyone wears masks, and my guess is depending on where you are easily less than 10% of mask-wearers wear masks properly. They don’t wear masks over their nose, leave huge gaps between the mask and their face, take off their mask to sneeze or cough (I kid you not). They try to make it easier to breathe, and by extension defeat the point of wearing a mask. True. Where I live masks are not enforced, we are in the summer and >90% of those I see are not using it. But the few that are still using it are doing it properly. > Nevertheless, a measure has been taken, and local policymakers may now rest with a false sense of security. I agree with you but not because I don't think masks work. It's just that people think that now that they have took the jab and put the mask they can do whatever they want including staying for hours in a fully occupied and closed room where a guy is coughing non-stop. It's just that people are stupid and irresponsible. When I studied workplace safety and health we learned that protective gear is the last measure you adopt. If you have place where exists a risk of people falling you first should attempt to eliminate the risk and improve the ergonomics of the place, like installing guardrails. If that isn't possible you enact administrative policies like forbidding from transiting in the dangerous place unless they have authorization and a reason to be there. And only then you provide protective gear for those.
  - 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
Over the long term your risk of exposure approaches 1 regardless of whether you wear a mask in restaurants. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646

InitialLastName 5y ago

I don't know (and I'm not defending this validation, as I take issue with a number of premises) but my understanding of the justification is that restaurants can relatively easily space out/put dividers up between their tables (such that risk of transmission between parties at different tables is lower), but that no such accommodation can be made easily for the aisles, bathrooms, bar, and other intermediate spaces. Thus the rule, which around here is "wear a mask if you aren't seated at your table". Given how restaurants around here are still packing people in, though, one has to assume that the initial table-spacing premise is compromised, undermining the whole endeavor.

ceejayoz 5y ago
The dividers are pretty silly if the virus is as airborne as is now believed.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  They are. But limiting the number of people you’ve been potentially exposed to to just the people directly next to you is obviously safer than being exposed to every person between your table and the bathroom/exit.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    If it's airborne, you're exposed to all of the people in the facility, and all of the people in it within the last few hours. The dividers likely make minimal if any difference.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      sigh I didn’t say that the dividers help. I in fact explicitly agreed with you that they’re useless. That being said, the virus isn’t magically going to fill the entire space equally from one infected person. There is a distance factor involved, and the closer you are unmasked the higher your risk. So only unmasking at your table cuts your risk pool down to the tables immediately proximate to you, rather than everyone you walked by, and anyone you shared the bathroom with. It’s not as safe as staying home, but it’s better than being unmasked the entire time. Oh, and the risk isn’t going to hang around hours after the fact, unless if you’re in a completely unventilated space. Commercial restaurants change their air over a recommended 8 times an hour.

j2bax 5y ago

Standing in a crowded waiting area is ≠ sitting at a spaced out table maybe with a divider between you and the other tables.

bmeski 5y ago
The particles are floating around in the air. They don’t hit the glass and turn around and go home, they continue to float and a draft or whatever will disperse the particles throughout the room. Who gets to decide what size interior is ok? Or what crowded is? It’s all arbitrary and you all fell for it. Just let omicron spread, accept it’s another seasonal flu, and move the fuck on.
- j2bax 5y ago
  To be fair, I wasn't referring to my own personal risk tolerance but I guess trying to explain a seemingly arbitrary rule... I haven't eaten at a sit down for the last two years because I have small children and expecting them to follow any sort of strict masking protocol is unrealistic. I also have multiple close family members who work in ICU and healthcare and I really don't think you want Omicron to spread faster than it needs to... That's an extremely shallow selfish mindset. Edit: Just wanted to share an article from yesterday on the state of hospitals. I have friends/family that are super badass just like you, until they get in a car accident and need a bed at the ER. All the sudden shit gets a little more real and personal... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/01/11/1071568846/u-s-covid-hospitalizations-hit-new-record-high-raising-risks-for-patients https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/01/11/1071568...
notabee 5y ago
Here's a good infographic from a country with a seemingly better public information response. It talks about both droplets and aerosols. Simply put: dividers don't help much with aerosols, or may concentrate the particles from multiple users of the same space. http://aerosol.nsysu.edu.tw/en/scopes/108 http://aerosol.nsysu.edu.tw/en/scopes/108

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ashtonkem 5y ago

I’ve never really understood why people are confused by the eating thing. The point is obviously harm reduction, not harm elimination. If you’re going to eat out, it’s obviously better to not get exposed to every single person you walked by when you’re not doing an activity that’s impossible with a mask on. This has always been extremely obvious to me, and a natural consequence of trying to keep restaurants open and case loads down. Now at various points I’ve wondered why restaurants were open, but that’s a different discussion.

ghaff 5y ago
>The point is obviously harm reduction, not harm elimination. Or the point is theater. If you're going to have indoor dining--and most places have made that decision--people can't wear masks when they're eating and drinking. And the relatively small number of times I've been eating inside it's pretty obvious that wearing a mask between the door and your table almost certainly makes a negligible difference in risk.

nomel 5y ago

I’ve always assumed the virus can enter the body through the eyes, who’s tear ducts lead to the nasal passages.

aaronharnly 5y ago
Yes. Some physicians I know now wear goggles, or glasses with foam fittings kind of like swim goggles.

psychlops 5y ago

It's an effective way to continue to collect tax revenue while maintaining the illusion of control. Don't point it out or it will spawn a series of conversations where people endlessly divide and multiply statistically negligible percentages.

peder 5y ago

Could it be something as simple as ignoring that we're all touching our masks, our clothing, our eyes. Basically, did we optimize one part of the problem while ignoring all others and the net effect is basically zero?