3 ms·

The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to f

The issue for me is I have elderly parents one of which does have a health condition (serious) that makes some breathing and other issues hard. They wanted to fly out to visit me. The absolute best way to avoid covid for yourself in my view is an N95 masks with a vent, because you can actually wear that thing for hours comfortably. I have friends who treated folks with covid wearing N95's and did not get covid. So I really wish we could let folks make the personal health decisions here a bit more. If you want to wear a bubble helmet with filters in it - go for it. The full respirator (almost always with an exhalation valve)? Go for it. The N95 with an exhalation valve? Go for it. Instead, delta airlines says no full cover, no N95 with exhalation etc. So now you have people who don't want to wear masks forced to wear them, and they are preventing folks who really DO want to be protected (while on a flight) from fully protecting themselves. This is all in the name of "science" which really is not science but "public health" mumbo jumbo. It goes back to this issue of basically not realizing folks have different risk profiles / tolerances. If I'm allowed to wear my N95 with an exhalation valve for 4 hours, I frankly don't care if the guy 2 rows back has his mask off his nose. This mistake is lecturing everyone (often with bad info) and then blocking folks from solving their own problems. remember when the anti-body rapid tests had to have a chip, an iphone app and a medical professional in the mix? And no, I don't believe in those cloth masks, and surgical masks on a plane for 5 hours? Hard to imagine that being highly effective.

toolz 5y ago
Personally I don't think any kind of mask works on people who don't want to wear them. I hypothesize the reason general population shows little or no benefit with masks is because wearing masks effectively is significantly more tedious than just having one on most of the time where people require them. People who don't want masks aren't getting fitted properly for n95's, they aren't shaving, they aren't behaving consciously in the many ways you can behave that render masking ineffective.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Agreed. I laugh because folks have masks on their necks, off their noses etc, when eating, when drinking etc. I don't blame them, a lot of masks fog up glasses etc if they actually are restrictive and don't have an exhalation valve. I shave (this comes from scuba diving where shaving provides similar benefits). I have my own reasons not to want to get covid. So I like doing some things that I'm confident reduce my risk meaningfully. But I don't lecture others, I solve my own problem here.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  N.95 without shaving does seem to still confer some additional protection, though arguably you're wasting over half the potential when you do.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Its pretty noticeable, If I shave, I get a tight suction feel on an indrawn breath. This is same experience you get with a scuba mask. That's interesting there is some protection, I could believe still better than things like cloth and surgical because the strapping tends to be tighter.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Does it render masks "ineffective" or "less effective"? I think I see so much absolutist language whereas I wish we would use more relative language.
  - Laforet 5y ago
    A LOT less effective, especially for filtering sub-micrometer aerosols. https://imgur.com/a/Of4rDAu https://imgur.com/a/Of4rDAu Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00375 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00375
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I appreciate you sending the source. I guess I still have the same argument. A LOT less effective does not equal ineffective. Or maybe I just see certain words like "ineffective" as binary words, either it works or it doesn't, and have a reaction to that. It may be a lot less effective to have facial hair while wearing an n95 compared to no facial hair and a properly fit n95, but is that still much much more effective than not wearing any face mask?
      - toolz 5y ago
        ineffective is not binary - it depends on your endpoint, which is subjective. If your endpoint is to not catch covid and someone ineffectively wears their mask such that they would not have caught covid if they wore it correctly - then the mask was ineffective even if statistically they _maybe_ had lower chances of catching covid than without wearing a mask at all. and I say maybe very strongly here...we do not understand transmissible diseases nearly as well as many would like to think - there are plenty of observable datapoints that correlate mask usage with increased transmission...my gut feeling would be to explain those away with confounding variables, but my gut feeling is not science and no substitute for a testable understanding of the problem and solution
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        Ah, yeah, I think it was just a misalignment on the word ineffective. I think when I hear many people use it, I assume they mean pointless, ineffective for all, whereas in you saying it, it sounds like you meant ineffective in that particular instance based on what the outcome was. I see you seem to have a lot more nuance in your perspective than I may had been assuming. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying.
henrikschroder 5y ago
The most mindbogglingly dumb part about masks on planes is that there's still meal service on longer flights, at which point everyone takes off their masks at the same time to eat the food. Are we supposed to believe that the virus takes a little nap while everyone eats, and then only goes back to spreading itself when everyone has finished eating? Detailed rules always lead to insanity. The best way is always to be upfront about the risks, how to mitigate them, and then let people make their own risk assessment and do whatever they're comfortable with. But instead of saying "Flying carries a risk of exposure to this virus and others, here's what you can do", we're saying "If everyone engages in this piece of safety theater, flying is perfectly safe and fun for everyone!"
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Exactly. That's all I want to be able to do. Skip the meal, wear my "medical professionals only" N95 mask with exhalation valve so I am comfortable. Then I won't care if someone has their mask on their chin while they eat some food. Instead, I can't wear the mask I want, and we play this stupid game of forcing folks to wear ineffective masks in a highly closed off space who don't care / don't want to / have already had covid and don't believe the doctors claims that there is no element of natural protection as a result.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I would imagine if the flight is 5 hours long and the eating time is only 0.5 hours, then there would only be 0.5 hours of breathing virus into the air than 5 hours of it. That being said, yes, most would be unmasked at that time and likely to breathe it in, I guess I just see overall as limiting the total amount of virus breathed into the air by requiring masks most of the time.
  - henrikschroder 5y ago
    Half an hour is long enough to get infected, we know this. If masks work, they work on a mechanistic, physical, level. They filter air, and if you use your masks wrong, or take them off, they stop filtering air. But if you look at how people are actually using their masks, they pay zero attention to the mechanics of it, and 100% attention to the appearance of it. Someone who wants to wear an N-95 mask for the duration of the entire flight, and who won't remove it for eating, understands the mechanics of how they work. That behaviour is not theatre. Someone who wears whatever because they're told to, crams it in their pocket now and then, removes it while eating, and still believes they work, do not in fact understand how masks work. And whoever is making rules and mask mandates that allow for this behaviour also clearly do not understand how masks work. It's all theatre. It's masks as make-belief lucky rabbit's foot talismans, and yet we're supposed to believe that the rules are based in science.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
At this point it's not even "public health" it's "safety theater" [0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater
Laforet 5y ago
The rule was not made to protect passengers, but to protect the crew who are stunk in a tin can with hundreds of different people every day. The risks will add up over time. Also, male doctors and nurses are require to shave before donning their masks for a shift because even the slightest overnight stubble will ruin the seal. The chances of general public wearing an N95 correctly to get the most benefit out of it is close to nil.

toolz 5y ago

Personally I don't think any kind of mask works on people who don't want to wear them. I hypothesize the reason general population shows little or no benefit with masks is because wearing masks effectively is significantly more tedious than just having one on most of the time where people require them. People who don't want masks aren't getting fitted properly for n95's, they aren't shaving, they aren't behaving consciously in the many ways you can behave that render masking ineffective.

tempnow987 5y ago
Agreed. I laugh because folks have masks on their necks, off their noses etc, when eating, when drinking etc. I don't blame them, a lot of masks fog up glasses etc if they actually are restrictive and don't have an exhalation valve. I shave (this comes from scuba diving where shaving provides similar benefits). I have my own reasons not to want to get covid. So I like doing some things that I'm confident reduce my risk meaningfully. But I don't lecture others, I solve my own problem here.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
N.95 without shaving does seem to still confer some additional protection, though arguably you're wasting over half the potential when you do.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Its pretty noticeable, If I shave, I get a tight suction feel on an indrawn breath. This is same experience you get with a scuba mask. That's interesting there is some protection, I could believe still better than things like cloth and surgical because the strapping tends to be tighter.
jimkleiber 5y ago
Does it render masks "ineffective" or "less effective"? I think I see so much absolutist language whereas I wish we would use more relative language.
- Laforet 5y ago
  A LOT less effective, especially for filtering sub-micrometer aerosols. https://imgur.com/a/Of4rDAu https://imgur.com/a/Of4rDAu Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00375 https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00375
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I appreciate you sending the source. I guess I still have the same argument. A LOT less effective does not equal ineffective. Or maybe I just see certain words like "ineffective" as binary words, either it works or it doesn't, and have a reaction to that. It may be a lot less effective to have facial hair while wearing an n95 compared to no facial hair and a properly fit n95, but is that still much much more effective than not wearing any face mask?
    - toolz 5y ago
      ineffective is not binary - it depends on your endpoint, which is subjective. If your endpoint is to not catch covid and someone ineffectively wears their mask such that they would not have caught covid if they wore it correctly - then the mask was ineffective even if statistically they _maybe_ had lower chances of catching covid than without wearing a mask at all. and I say maybe very strongly here...we do not understand transmissible diseases nearly as well as many would like to think - there are plenty of observable datapoints that correlate mask usage with increased transmission...my gut feeling would be to explain those away with confounding variables, but my gut feeling is not science and no substitute for a testable understanding of the problem and solution
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        Ah, yeah, I think it was just a misalignment on the word ineffective. I think when I hear many people use it, I assume they mean pointless, ineffective for all, whereas in you saying it, it sounds like you meant ineffective in that particular instance based on what the outcome was. I see you seem to have a lot more nuance in your perspective than I may had been assuming. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying.

henrikschroder 5y ago

The most mindbogglingly dumb part about masks on planes is that there's still meal service on longer flights, at which point everyone takes off their masks at the same time to eat the food. Are we supposed to believe that the virus takes a little nap while everyone eats, and then only goes back to spreading itself when everyone has finished eating? Detailed rules always lead to insanity. The best way is always to be upfront about the risks, how to mitigate them, and then let people make their own risk assessment and do whatever they're comfortable with. But instead of saying "Flying carries a risk of exposure to this virus and others, here's what you can do", we're saying "If everyone engages in this piece of safety theater, flying is perfectly safe and fun for everyone!"

tempnow987 5y ago
Exactly. That's all I want to be able to do. Skip the meal, wear my "medical professionals only" N95 mask with exhalation valve so I am comfortable. Then I won't care if someone has their mask on their chin while they eat some food. Instead, I can't wear the mask I want, and we play this stupid game of forcing folks to wear ineffective masks in a highly closed off space who don't care / don't want to / have already had covid and don't believe the doctors claims that there is no element of natural protection as a result.
jimkleiber 5y ago
I would imagine if the flight is 5 hours long and the eating time is only 0.5 hours, then there would only be 0.5 hours of breathing virus into the air than 5 hours of it. That being said, yes, most would be unmasked at that time and likely to breathe it in, I guess I just see overall as limiting the total amount of virus breathed into the air by requiring masks most of the time.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  Half an hour is long enough to get infected, we know this. If masks work, they work on a mechanistic, physical, level. They filter air, and if you use your masks wrong, or take them off, they stop filtering air. But if you look at how people are actually using their masks, they pay zero attention to the mechanics of it, and 100% attention to the appearance of it. Someone who wants to wear an N-95 mask for the duration of the entire flight, and who won't remove it for eating, understands the mechanics of how they work. That behaviour is not theatre. Someone who wears whatever because they're told to, crams it in their pocket now and then, removes it while eating, and still believes they work, do not in fact understand how masks work. And whoever is making rules and mask mandates that allow for this behaviour also clearly do not understand how masks work. It's all theatre. It's masks as make-belief lucky rabbit's foot talismans, and yet we're supposed to believe that the rules are based in science.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

At this point it's not even "public health" it's "safety theater" [0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

Laforet 5y ago

The rule was not made to protect passengers, but to protect the crew who are stunk in a tin can with hundreds of different people every day. The risks will add up over time. Also, male doctors and nurses are require to shave before donning their masks for a shift because even the slightest overnight stubble will ruin the seal. The chances of general public wearing an N95 correctly to get the most benefit out of it is close to nil.