2 ms·
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 expos
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoPerhaps 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 agoThen you haven’t understood a thing. Have a good day.