3 ms·

It seems like one of the countries where masking while sick and during flu/cold season is common would have some studies on this.

• saalweachter 4y ago
  You'd notice it in professional populations, I'd wager. I also assume it would be a confounding factor in any study that involved masks, if it was a significant effect. "Weird, the group that breathed in asbestos for 20 years without wearing a mask had 90% more lung cancer than the masked group, but 20% less XYZ. Does asbestos exposure prevent XYZ?"
  • mauvehaus 4y ago
    Dental hygienists might be another group that could be studied, and hopefully one with fewer confounding factors. As an added bonus they're usually (in the Before Times) wearing surgical masks as opposed to a [K]N-95, which is anecdotally a lot more reflective of what the general population is wearing (if they're wearing anything at all). Edited to add: As an added, added bonus, dental hygienist skews heavily female, whereas construction and remediation skews heavily male. Female populations also wouldn't have the confounding factor of facial hair, which interferes with the seal of a respirator. Full disclosure: I type all this while I'm wearing a half-face respirator with P-100 cartridges on it because I'm doing a bunch of sanding today. I also have a goatee. Read into that what you will.
• swayvil 4y ago
  Given the current hubub, you'd think that such studies are the first thing we'd hear about.
• BoxOfRain 4y ago
  It didn't seem to make a difference at all when Scotland and Wales had mask mandates but England didn't, although I've not seen a rigorous analysis of why this was.