6 ms·

>“It turns out that leakage dominates over filtration.” Masks should have a tight fit around the face and nose to minimize any air leakage. Wasn't this exactly

>“It turns out that leakage dominates over filtration.” Masks should have a tight fit around the face and nose to minimize any air leakage. Wasn't this exactly what people against mask mandates were ridiculed for saying? That most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances because they didn't form a seal around the sides of your mouth? I vividly recall people being mocked for suggesting this early in the pandemic. Seems like governments were just trying to cover for the fact that N95 masks were in short supply

mindslight 5y ago
Anti-maskers weren't being condemned for pointing out that ersatz cloth masks weren't very effective. They were condemned for levying that criticism as if it was a justification for doing nothing, as opposed to an argument for more effective off-the-shelf respiratory protection. (I ignored your attempt to drag "mandates" into this, because the primary aspect is personal behavior. I've yet to see an anti-mask-mandate protest/movement where everybody voluntarily wears respirators and distances, while philosophically arguing against legal mandates for doing so. And I would remember if I had, as this would align with my own politics)
- rhino369 5y ago
  But none of the mask mandates--at least in the USA--have required masks that significantly work. So you have a law that requires uncomfortable masks that make it hard to communicate, but don't significantly reduce transmission. "Well some masks do work!" is not a good counter-argument, especially when its clear that nobody really expects the public to be able to wear the good mask the correct way. You are asking them to respond to an argument the pro-mask contingent was afraid to even make.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Yes, the mandates as they currently stand are lame. But the anti-maskers are using that senselessness to argue for rejecting the whole idea of wearing any respiratory projection, which they demonstrate by personally choosing to not wear respirators. As I said, their argument is not akin to "respirators protect against the spread of Covid but the government shouldn't be mandating specific personal behavior", but is rather rejection of the whole subject. For an illustration of the difference, I recently had some trouble entering a hospital due to their mask mandate - they seriously insisted that I take off my P100 respirator and wear just their cosplay mask instead. I was able to escalate to someone higher up and find a (more but still not entirely sensible) compromise that they'd let me wear my own N95 under a cosplay mask. Where is the political group that represents my predicament, which was caused by a broken centralized mandate? It's certainly not in the unmasked people berating customer service people for enforcing some basic pandemic etiquette! > nobody really expects the public to be able to wear the good mask the correct way. IMO this was a terrible groupthink counterargument (aka straw man) led by the other political team of ersatz maskplayers and condescending healthcare workers, following from the early central authority lie that respirators are ineffective (in order to reduce consumer demand for them). The red herring that wearing a mask primarily protects others also followed from this rationalization of ersatz cloth masks. The open society / freedom approach is that you treat people like adults, assume they can understand a mildly complex thing, and then increase education to help everyone do better. Instead two years later we've still got the two political teams arguing over which stupid approach is better, while mostly looking at anyone who wears more effective respiratory projection as some aberration. If I had been in charge of pandemic response, I would have sent everybody a kit including a N95 mask as soon as possible, and made it clear that the primary reason to wear a respirator is to protect yourself and your family. Then I would have ramped up production of elastomeric half face masks (which are more comfortable and thus more sustainable), and perhaps just given those out as well - their (pre-pandemic) cost of $30 per person is peanuts compared to what we've lost. These utterly backwards post-reality memes spread by both political teams have caused so much needless death and suffering.
thakoppno 5y ago
There was an episode of Dr. Oz from April 1, 2020 that demonstrated exactly how difficult it was to properly fit an N95. The surgeon general released the demonstration of making a cloth mask from household items on April 4, 2020. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLXEhSjVsw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLXEhSjVsw Fauci on February 5, 2020 wrote in an email: > The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.
simianpirate 5y ago
Protection was and still is marked at a percentage less than 100% but still useful. The people being ridiculed were saying there was no point because it’s not 100% without realizing that the lowered percentage or ratio of spread when BOTH parties are wearing even an ill fitting mask. The difference is not negligible. It’s really a math equation between two social parties in the end. People wearing masks often lower their protection even lower because they wear the same mask every day or after every exposure without washing or by constantly touching it. In general, I disagree with the “ridicule” but instead, trying a new or different way of explaining it.
- nradov 5y ago
  Let's do the math. Assume the protection is 90% for each individual interaction. After 7 interactions you're down below 50% protection. And people in the real world obviously aren't going to stop interacting.
jcranberry 5y ago
According to this study, with two people talking 3 meters apart and one infected, if only the non-infected person wears an ordinary surgical mask (not n95), it increases the time to the 90% bound for infection risk from 1.5 minutes to 30 minutes. So at least in theory it's certainly not for nothing.
pdabbadabba 5y ago
> most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances because they didn't form a seal around the sides of your mouth I remember people saying that, but I had always understood the primary benefit of cloth and other masks was to limit the wearer's ability to spread virus-containing droplets if they were infected by asymptomatic (or symptomatic and very reckless, I suppose). I thought it was widely acknowledged that they provided very limited protection for the wearer. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me." This is why, for example, there were recommendations to not wear vented N95 masks. Of course, the fact that the mask doesn't form a tight seal around the mouth surely undermines its ability to provide both forms of protection, to some degree. But I seem to recall a fair amount of discussion of the fact that masks could still be fairly effective at reducing the number of virus-containing droplets expelled into the surrounding environment even in the absence of a tight fit. (And, for what its worth, that has always made fairly intuitive sense to me. Though I acknowledge that's not a very good reason to believe it.) Maybe others' experiences differed, but I thought this was very clearly explained by the 'authorities.' Though that didn't stop people from misunderstanding or, in some cases, spreading misinformation to score political points by making mask proponents look stupid.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  An N95 is the opposite. It only filters on the way in. Which is the direction we should be going, anyway. High risk people who cannot get vaccinated should wear an N95. Edit: As numerous people have pointed out, this is wrong. All the N95 masks I’ve seen had a valve, but apparently this is uncommon. TIL.
  - pdabbadabba 5y ago
    I'd actually like to see the data on the degree to which N95 masks also reduce the number of virus particles expelled. I'd be pretty surprised if an (unvented) N95 really did little to block virus particles from being expelled, even though that's certainly not what they are designed to do. But, in any case, its consistent with my point that, supposedly, there are benefits to cloth masks, even if they don't fit tightly around the face. That's not to say it wouldn't be better if everyone wore an N95/KN95/etc.--especially people who are at high risk.
kube-system 5y ago
> ridiculed for saying > That most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances Yes, because it is fallacious to say `if(protection < 100%) { masks are not useful }`. Any level of protection is better than zero. We really can't afford to all wear PAPRs, and wearing the best that we can get is always the best solution. When (K)N95s were in short supply, the best we could reasonably have everyone wear was cloth.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 5y ago
  If you always want the best protection do you also wear a crash helmet and fire resistant suit whenever you ride in a car?
  - lowbloodsugar 5y ago
    When I'm driving in a low risk environment, e.g. around town, no. When I am in high risk environment (i.e. racing on a track), yes, these are required and you won't be allowed on the track without them. Walking around a grocery store is now a high risk environment.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That is the criticism I am making.
  - coding123 5y ago
    Well I think when we start seeing Cybertrucks everywhere you will know that people really are trying to dodge bullets and run over homeless for their own safety.
fxleach 5y ago
> "It turns out that leakage dominates over filtration." That sentence does not translate to "cloth masks are useless". In comparison, a bullet-proof vest may only protect part of your body from danger but it's still better than nothing if you're being shot at.
- ekanes 5y ago
  I guess if bullets could flow around the vest and then still hit you, that analogy would work.
  - fxleach 5y ago
    What you've basically said is that if a mask is not 100% effective it's useless. My analogy stands, just because a bullet-proof vest is not 100% effective in stopping all bullets from hitting your body, it doesn't make it useless. Some protection is better than none.

mindslight 5y ago

Anti-maskers weren't being condemned for pointing out that ersatz cloth masks weren't very effective. They were condemned for levying that criticism as if it was a justification for doing nothing, as opposed to an argument for more effective off-the-shelf respiratory protection. (I ignored your attempt to drag "mandates" into this, because the primary aspect is personal behavior. I've yet to see an anti-mask-mandate protest/movement where everybody voluntarily wears respirators and distances, while philosophically arguing against legal mandates for doing so. And I would remember if I had, as this would align with my own politics)

rhino369 5y ago
But none of the mask mandates--at least in the USA--have required masks that significantly work. So you have a law that requires uncomfortable masks that make it hard to communicate, but don't significantly reduce transmission. "Well some masks do work!" is not a good counter-argument, especially when its clear that nobody really expects the public to be able to wear the good mask the correct way. You are asking them to respond to an argument the pro-mask contingent was afraid to even make.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Yes, the mandates as they currently stand are lame. But the anti-maskers are using that senselessness to argue for rejecting the whole idea of wearing any respiratory projection, which they demonstrate by personally choosing to not wear respirators. As I said, their argument is not akin to "respirators protect against the spread of Covid but the government shouldn't be mandating specific personal behavior", but is rather rejection of the whole subject. For an illustration of the difference, I recently had some trouble entering a hospital due to their mask mandate - they seriously insisted that I take off my P100 respirator and wear just their cosplay mask instead. I was able to escalate to someone higher up and find a (more but still not entirely sensible) compromise that they'd let me wear my own N95 under a cosplay mask. Where is the political group that represents my predicament, which was caused by a broken centralized mandate? It's certainly not in the unmasked people berating customer service people for enforcing some basic pandemic etiquette! > nobody really expects the public to be able to wear the good mask the correct way. IMO this was a terrible groupthink counterargument (aka straw man) led by the other political team of ersatz maskplayers and condescending healthcare workers, following from the early central authority lie that respirators are ineffective (in order to reduce consumer demand for them). The red herring that wearing a mask primarily protects others also followed from this rationalization of ersatz cloth masks. The open society / freedom approach is that you treat people like adults, assume they can understand a mildly complex thing, and then increase education to help everyone do better. Instead two years later we've still got the two political teams arguing over which stupid approach is better, while mostly looking at anyone who wears more effective respiratory projection as some aberration. If I had been in charge of pandemic response, I would have sent everybody a kit including a N95 mask as soon as possible, and made it clear that the primary reason to wear a respirator is to protect yourself and your family. Then I would have ramped up production of elastomeric half face masks (which are more comfortable and thus more sustainable), and perhaps just given those out as well - their (pre-pandemic) cost of $30 per person is peanuts compared to what we've lost. These utterly backwards post-reality memes spread by both political teams have caused so much needless death and suffering.

thakoppno 5y ago

There was an episode of Dr. Oz from April 1, 2020 that demonstrated exactly how difficult it was to properly fit an N95. The surgeon general released the demonstration of making a cloth mask from household items on April 4, 2020. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLXEhSjVsw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9YLXEhSjVsw Fauci on February 5, 2020 wrote in an email: > The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.

simianpirate 5y ago

Protection was and still is marked at a percentage less than 100% but still useful. The people being ridiculed were saying there was no point because it’s not 100% without realizing that the lowered percentage or ratio of spread when BOTH parties are wearing even an ill fitting mask. The difference is not negligible. It’s really a math equation between two social parties in the end. People wearing masks often lower their protection even lower because they wear the same mask every day or after every exposure without washing or by constantly touching it. In general, I disagree with the “ridicule” but instead, trying a new or different way of explaining it.

nradov 5y ago
Let's do the math. Assume the protection is 90% for each individual interaction. After 7 interactions you're down below 50% protection. And people in the real world obviously aren't going to stop interacting.

jcranberry 5y ago

According to this study, with two people talking 3 meters apart and one infected, if only the non-infected person wears an ordinary surgical mask (not n95), it increases the time to the 90% bound for infection risk from 1.5 minutes to 30 minutes. So at least in theory it's certainly not for nothing.

pdabbadabba 5y ago

> most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances because they didn't form a seal around the sides of your mouth I remember people saying that, but I had always understood the primary benefit of cloth and other masks was to limit the wearer's ability to spread virus-containing droplets if they were infected by asymptomatic (or symptomatic and very reckless, I suppose). I thought it was widely acknowledged that they provided very limited protection for the wearer. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me." This is why, for example, there were recommendations to not wear vented N95 masks. Of course, the fact that the mask doesn't form a tight seal around the mouth surely undermines its ability to provide both forms of protection, to some degree. But I seem to recall a fair amount of discussion of the fact that masks could still be fairly effective at reducing the number of virus-containing droplets expelled into the surrounding environment even in the absence of a tight fit. (And, for what its worth, that has always made fairly intuitive sense to me. Though I acknowledge that's not a very good reason to believe it.) Maybe others' experiences differed, but I thought this was very clearly explained by the 'authorities.' Though that didn't stop people from misunderstanding or, in some cases, spreading misinformation to score political points by making mask proponents look stupid.

parkingrift 5y ago
An N95 is the opposite. It only filters on the way in. Which is the direction we should be going, anyway. High risk people who cannot get vaccinated should wear an N95. Edit: As numerous people have pointed out, this is wrong. All the N95 masks I’ve seen had a valve, but apparently this is uncommon. TIL.
- pdabbadabba 5y ago
  I'd actually like to see the data on the degree to which N95 masks also reduce the number of virus particles expelled. I'd be pretty surprised if an (unvented) N95 really did little to block virus particles from being expelled, even though that's certainly not what they are designed to do. But, in any case, its consistent with my point that, supposedly, there are benefits to cloth masks, even if they don't fit tightly around the face. That's not to say it wouldn't be better if everyone wore an N95/KN95/etc.--especially people who are at high risk.

kube-system 5y ago

> ridiculed for saying > That most of the cloth masks were effectively just for appearances Yes, because it is fallacious to say `if(protection < 100%) { masks are not useful }`. Any level of protection is better than zero. We really can't afford to all wear PAPRs, and wearing the best that we can get is always the best solution. When (K)N95s were in short supply, the best we could reasonably have everyone wear was cloth.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nradov 5y ago
If you always want the best protection do you also wear a crash helmet and fire resistant suit whenever you ride in a car?
- lowbloodsugar 5y ago
  When I'm driving in a low risk environment, e.g. around town, no. When I am in high risk environment (i.e. racing on a track), yes, these are required and you won't be allowed on the track without them. Walking around a grocery store is now a high risk environment.
- kube-system 5y ago
  That is the criticism I am making.
- coding123 5y ago
  Well I think when we start seeing Cybertrucks everywhere you will know that people really are trying to dodge bullets and run over homeless for their own safety.

fxleach 5y ago

> "It turns out that leakage dominates over filtration." That sentence does not translate to "cloth masks are useless". In comparison, a bullet-proof vest may only protect part of your body from danger but it's still better than nothing if you're being shot at.

ekanes 5y ago
I guess if bullets could flow around the vest and then still hit you, that analogy would work.
- fxleach 5y ago
  What you've basically said is that if a mask is not 100% effective it's useless. My analogy stands, just because a bullet-proof vest is not 100% effective in stopping all bullets from hitting your body, it doesn't make it useless. Some protection is better than none.