3 ms·

I think you are likely making up the exposure risk based on "conventional" wisdom. I imagine the actual efficacy gain of a simple cloth mask has nothing to do w

I think you are likely making up the exposure risk based on "conventional" wisdom. I imagine the actual efficacy gain of a simple cloth mask has nothing to do with "trapping" virus particles. My guess for where the actual efficacy comes from is 1) not being able to touch your mucus membranes with your hands anymore 2) limiting the amount of air circulating near your face by limiting induced currents due to your inhale/exhale cycle If I'm right, your conclusions about gaining the effectiveness of a simple cloth mask are completely off base. Definitely curious if you happen to know of a study that looks at the mechanisms of protection for a non filtering mask!

kcplate 5y ago
Sure its CW, but my point was that any possible blocking of virus particles would be completely incidental/accidental, and because the mask is not effective at all at stopping those particles due to their size and weave of the cloth, anything incidentally blocked would not necessarily be blocked again but could still pass through even if you were no longer exposed to the initial source. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study extolling the virtues of cloth masking, I’ll read it. But pretty much all of the positive masking studies with any real statistical benefit of protection seem to be centered around n95 or surgical masks—worn correctly and disposed of after one use.
- Misdicorl 5y ago
  You can't have it both ways. Either simple cloth is not good at filtering the virus, and therefore we shouldn't care about retransmit risk from "trapped" virus. Or it is good at blocking them (like an n95) and you can start thinking/caring about second order effects like retransmission of trapped virus. I don't need a peer review study to tell me to ignore the epsilon squared term when the epsilon term is already being argued to be marginal. If an article comes through claiming the inverse, that is surprising and worth communicating at large.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    No, I am not having it both ways. I don’t think cloth masks are effective at all. I’m responding to the “cloth masks are 5-33% effective” for incidental exposure commentary as a positive aspect of cloth masking. It’s a red herring that creates a false sense of security. My point is that if a cloth mask is only partially effective for an incidental exposure than it must have been somewhat effective at a given moment, but due to virus size and cloth weaving…every moment that the particle didn’t reach your nasal passages due to that momentary chance then that virus still has a 67%-95% of entering you and infecting you every moment it is near you. So any incidental exposure becomes non-incidental.
    - Misdicorl 5y ago
      I appreciate you clarifying your reasoning. I think it's straight up crazy/magical reasoning. But to be honest I don't have much more confidence in my own conjectures on this matter.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        I don’t see what’s all that magical about assuming something that is 33% effective at any given moment would not all of a sudden become 100% effective at every other moment. But perhaps when you roll a die the same number appears every time. I just know that when I roll a die I generally have a 1/6 chance that my first number comes up again on every roll I try. Perhaps randomness and chance is magical. I always thought it wasn’t.
        Misdicorl 5y ago
        Perhaps it's a failure in this communication mode. It seems to be that you've argued yourself down a garden path. From my understanding your statements are A) using incorrect concepts (moment in time? A 15 minute infection window turns into a 20 minute infection window) B) simply irrelevant. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, cloth masks aren't trapping any relevant amount of virus

kcplate 5y ago

Sure its CW, but my point was that any possible blocking of virus particles would be completely incidental/accidental, and because the mask is not effective at all at stopping those particles due to their size and weave of the cloth, anything incidentally blocked would not necessarily be blocked again but could still pass through even if you were no longer exposed to the initial source. If you can point me to a peer reviewed study extolling the virtues of cloth masking, I’ll read it. But pretty much all of the positive masking studies with any real statistical benefit of protection seem to be centered around n95 or surgical masks—worn correctly and disposed of after one use.

Misdicorl 5y ago
You can't have it both ways. Either simple cloth is not good at filtering the virus, and therefore we shouldn't care about retransmit risk from "trapped" virus. Or it is good at blocking them (like an n95) and you can start thinking/caring about second order effects like retransmission of trapped virus. I don't need a peer review study to tell me to ignore the epsilon squared term when the epsilon term is already being argued to be marginal. If an article comes through claiming the inverse, that is surprising and worth communicating at large.
- kcplate 5y ago
  No, I am not having it both ways. I don’t think cloth masks are effective at all. I’m responding to the “cloth masks are 5-33% effective” for incidental exposure commentary as a positive aspect of cloth masking. It’s a red herring that creates a false sense of security. My point is that if a cloth mask is only partially effective for an incidental exposure than it must have been somewhat effective at a given moment, but due to virus size and cloth weaving…every moment that the particle didn’t reach your nasal passages due to that momentary chance then that virus still has a 67%-95% of entering you and infecting you every moment it is near you. So any incidental exposure becomes non-incidental.
  - Misdicorl 5y ago
    I appreciate you clarifying your reasoning. I think it's straight up crazy/magical reasoning. But to be honest I don't have much more confidence in my own conjectures on this matter.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      I don’t see what’s all that magical about assuming something that is 33% effective at any given moment would not all of a sudden become 100% effective at every other moment. But perhaps when you roll a die the same number appears every time. I just know that when I roll a die I generally have a 1/6 chance that my first number comes up again on every roll I try. Perhaps randomness and chance is magical. I always thought it wasn’t.
      - Misdicorl 5y ago
        Perhaps it's a failure in this communication mode. It seems to be that you've argued yourself down a garden path. From my understanding your statements are A) using incorrect concepts (moment in time? A 15 minute infection window turns into a 20 minute infection window) B) simply irrelevant. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, cloth masks aren't trapping any relevant amount of virus