5 ms·

I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. Keeping people away from each other? Sure. His long do we

by taeric 4y ago

I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. Keeping people away from each other? Sure. His long do we reasonably think we can do that? (Speaking as someone that lives as a hermit with kids.) Edit: it seems the best case scenario in the article is that these outbreaks were always there, and we are better seeing them? Do we expect that to hold up? Or will we start ignoring it again?

maxerickson 4y ago
Who are you talking about thinking that diseases were eradicated by masks? Public health people talking about low incidence of diseases being due to pandemic isolation and masking almost certainly weren't implying that they were gone, more commenting that they were suppressed by those changes to behavior. I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. Or like send people home when they come to work with a cold, change that culture. For outbreaks, I doubt a few hundred cases of monkeypox (outside of the endemic areas) would have been such major news a couple years ago. It's largely an attention phenomenon. It is certainly something to keep an eye on, but it doesn't appear to be spreading uncontrollably. Democratic Republic of the Congo, one of the endemic areas, has more cases this year than the non-endemic areas.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  > I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. Some countries are actually putting significant resources into this. But if you're in a country that isn't, well, realistically, who is going to pay for it? Public health experts pretty much everywhere are saying that it should be done (mind you, they were saying that before covid, too; "proper ventilation would be beneficial" is hardly a new idea), but the only way it happens is through state funding.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    > but the only way it happens is through state funding. Is it really that expensive to open a window? I remember even in the dead of winter our school would regularly open windows to let in some fresh air. And in the hot humid summers we would regularly keep open windows, no matter how hot it got outside, 25 kids inside would make it way hotter. And smellier.
    - rsynnott 4y ago
      So in general when people talk about improved ventilation, they're _mostly_ not talking about opening a window (impractical in many places at certain times of year, anyway); they're talking about some sort of mechanical ventilation, particularly for large buildings. Improving that sort of thing is expensive.
  - redisman 4y ago
    In (most?) building this would also mean replacing the HVAC system and ducts which would take months-years and close the building down for the maintenance period. I’m really not sure what the pitch is realistically.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      How about systematically examining the current performance and likely retrofit cost of existing larger buildings? Then the discussion can be about a more specific cost (and time) estimate and include better information about the changes the updates would bring about. Or we could just assume it is too expensive and inconvenient to be worth looking into.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  Even at the height of the pandemic, it was quite frustrating to see so little public places taking easy measures like keeping the doors/windows open, but focusing so much energy on arrows on the floor or non-sense like that. Increased ventilation even helps with concentrating in school, as high CO2 is not good for schooling. I used to fall asleep all the time while I was in school, elementary, secondary, university, even staring at a computer. Now that I work from home, I never fall asleep that way. I was clearly just so tired from high CO2.
  - toyg 4y ago
    In my experience, that sleepiness might also be due to forced sleep patterns, commuting, and heavy food - things that you likely experienced in school but not now.
  - fullstop 4y ago
    > I never fall asleep that way. I was clearly just so tired from high CO2. I thought that Mass was just boring in elementary school. Perhaps there was more to it than that!
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    You put the arrows down once and the signs up once. Opening windows and doors and managing airflow is a constant effort. Installing better ventilation can get costly. Cheaper to just do the theater.
- taeric 4y ago
  It is more of a local feel, honestly. Many on twitter and around the schools I do go to seem convinced that if the rest of the nation had just been as good at masking as we were, they would have not had it as bad. And that if we are diligent in the future, we wouldn't have as severe of outbreaks. I can't even really say they are wrong. I don't know. My weight would be more on our 90%ish percent vaccination rate, but I could see both having impact. Edit: I'm actually somewhat skeptical that ventilation will work as well as folks hope. Living in a place that largely does rely on outside air, we had just as large of outbreaks as anyone else. (That is, it is common to have open windows here. The kid's schools are even made to take advantage of that, if I understand it correctly.) Again, I am /not/ saying it is wrong. I just doubt it weighs as heavily as portrayed.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    What is your definition of "work"? Of course better ventilation won't outright stop diseases from spreading, the point is that it will reduce the spread with reasonable cost and little downside (like another commenter mentions, if the existing ventilation isn't keeping up with CO2 concentrations, there can be other benefits).
    - taeric 4y ago
      From what I saw with our schools.... it didn't really cut the spread. Estimates are that the school had just as high of spread as elsewhere. And that is with near 100% vaccination of the kids in said school. I should note I'm not against trying. It seems a low hanging fruit to reach for. Just, evidence has shown that this particular disease goes for saturation fairly effectively.
      - jeromegv 4y ago
        Which evidence? You just quoted absolutely zero evidence beside your own personal anecdotes. It's an airborne disease. Better aeration definitely helps with airborne diseases, multiple studies prove it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17257148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17257148/ But of course, COVID spreads so easily that this can reach the limit (especially Omicron) and in an environment where kids will interact together in all kind of ways, but this would have definitely helped a lot more in the first few waves (pre-omicron) without needing to shut down schools entirely.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  There are also other, novel things we could do to fight infectious diseases that get pretty much no traction. Far-range UVC lights immediately come to mind. These kill viruses and single-celled organisms quickly while not harming humans. Just imagine this installed in all public, closed spaces! Schools, offices, restaurants, public transit all could be heavily reduced in how well any infectious diseases gets spread there. Yet, this is almost entirely absent from public discourse. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
  - nradov 4y ago
    Beware of unintended consequences. Humans evolved with constant exposure to pathogens. Living in overly sterile environments seems to be a risk factor for autoimmune disorders.
    - ajmurmann 4y ago
      I wonder if we could address this by not activating the lights everywhere all the time. Always on in hospitals and other places with vulnerable people. Only on in restaurants and public transit during time of increased thread like a pandemic or maybe flu season, since that in fact kills a lot of people.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. People still think SARS-CoV-2 spreads by droplets, so in their minds things like that wouldn't do anything.
- argonaut 4y ago
  You didn't see many scientists saying this. But early on in the pandemic many people were saying Covid would be completely over if everyone masked for a month, or if we locked down for a month, etc. I saw this a lot within my own network of very liberal, twenty-something peers. Some people still believe this, albeit probably a small minority now.
  - dv_dt 4y ago
    But it was over in multiple nations that did take the precautions seriously ... only to come back when they somehow were convinced to relax the recommendations.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    > But early on in the pandemic many people were saying Covid would be completely over if everyone masked for a month, or if we locked down for a month, It's technically true if every single person on Earth did this at the same time. Which is impossible, so no.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Is it, though? Feels unlikely that we could eliminate any corona virus that way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ajross 4y ago
> I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. Sorry, who "seems to think this?". I haven't seen this claim, or anything like it, anywhere. The point many were making was that the overwhelmingly successful suppression of all these other diseases was clear proof that "masks work" to suppress disease, and by extension that we should wear them to effect the suppression of a much more dangerous pandemic. So when there's a largely uncontrolled pandemic happening, you should wear a mask. Now, general immunity seems to have reached a point where the pandemic is at least reasonably controlled without mitigation strategies. Covid of mid-2022 is now a worrisome endemic disease, comparable to (but yet rather more dangerous than) the worst flu seasons we've seen in the past century (since 1918). So... we can take our masks off now (most of us, admitting that some people have different levels of risk tolerance, etc...). The calculus changes because the facts on the ground have changed. None of that is an argument that you shouldn't have worn a mask in late 2020. You absolutely should have, and it remains horrifying to me that so many of us didn't.
- taeric 4y ago
  Oddly, you are making the claim I question here. This "proof that masks work" is likely more just proof that not having kids in schools cuts a lot of spread. I really cannot underscore enough how much more sick you will get when you have kids in school than when you don't. And homeschool isn't really an answer here, sadly. It is fairly well documented that kids that come out of homeschool and finally enter a workforce or other social environment are at a heightened risk of sicknesses that the general populace just doesn't notice. Edit: I hasten to add that I agree this is not an argument that masks don't work. And I don't understand why some folks still insist on fighting not to wear them.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    Before we can have a debate about "masks" we have to define what masks are. It's undeniably clear that wearing actual respirator N95 or ffp2 masks that are fit to the face work in preventing infection and spread. That's just physics. But when most are only wearing a partial covering "mask" that just blocks spittle of course it's not going to prevent infecting or infection by an aerosol spread disease. The real problem with "masks" was that our governments' intentionally lied about the need for them at the start of the pandemic. The messaging never recovered from this and I imagine even if government health institutions stated the truth today, that face fit respirators are required, it'd just be ignored. The problem wasn't ever actual masks, it was people lying about them and people not wearing them. Sure, unfit "masks" might have some mitigation potential and it's better than wearing nothing. But masks, in the context of an aerosol spread infection, have to mean fit respirator masks.
mikhailt 4y ago
Unfortunately, there is a lot of intentional and unintentional misinformation going around. Mask was not meant to "eradicate" anything, that was not the intent. The same thing with lockdowns, it was not meant to eradicate anything. The original intent back in the very early stage of the pandemic is to slow down the pace of hospitalizations (or as they market it, flatting the curve); the best way to do that is to slow down the number of people getting sick. What were the best solutions? 1. Be vigilant with cleaning up and avoiding contact with sick folks (self) 2. Stay home if you're sick, wear masks and so on. (self) 3. Lock down when it was getting out of control. (community) Also, this can have an impact on reducing the variants by having less hosts to infect and to mutate but this failed, so we're likely to stick with COVID for a very long time like the cold and flu. People should still be masking up if they're sick and can't stay home.
SkyPuncher 4y ago
> I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. This is a claim that is novel to me. Masks help limit transmission. The immediate benefit is likely reducing transmission between an interaction of random people. A secondary, less supported benefit, is the reduction of viral load in transmissions - which can help reduce severity of an infection. This is not shocking when you consider the fact that surgeons have worn masks for a long time - with nearly the sole intention of reducing infection in their patients (albeit, not necessarily airborne infections). ----- IMO, people should be more outraged that the gov't did seemingly little to actually increase the healthcare's system to accommodate COVID patients. My understanding is mask mandates were almost always tied to significant capacity restrictions in the healthcare system. The idea of wearing masks was to create a buffer for healthcare to catch up.
- nradov 4y ago
  Surgeons have primarily worn masks and other PPE to reduce the risk of bacterial infections in open wounds, and protect themselves against bodily fluids. Protecting against respiratory viruses is something quite different. The mask mandates implemented in most places were always pointless pandemic theater. Only a properly fitted (i.e. tightly sealed with no facial hair) N95 or equivalent does much to block transmission of a highly contagious respiratory virus. It was never realistic to get the general public to do that.

by taeric 4y ago

maxerickson 4y ago

Who are you talking about thinking that diseases were eradicated by masks? Public health people talking about low incidence of diseases being due to pandemic isolation and masking almost certainly weren't implying that they were gone, more commenting that they were suppressed by those changes to behavior. I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. Or like send people home when they come to work with a cold, change that culture. For outbreaks, I doubt a few hundred cases of monkeypox (outside of the endemic areas) would have been such major news a couple years ago. It's largely an attention phenomenon. It is certainly something to keep an eye on, but it doesn't appear to be spreading uncontrollably. Democratic Republic of the Congo, one of the endemic areas, has more cases this year than the non-endemic areas.

rsynnott 4y ago
> I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. Some countries are actually putting significant resources into this. But if you're in a country that isn't, well, realistically, who is going to pay for it? Public health experts pretty much everywhere are saying that it should be done (mind you, they were saying that before covid, too; "proper ventilation would be beneficial" is hardly a new idea), but the only way it happens is through state funding.
- Swizec 4y ago
  > but the only way it happens is through state funding. Is it really that expensive to open a window? I remember even in the dead of winter our school would regularly open windows to let in some fresh air. And in the hot humid summers we would regularly keep open windows, no matter how hot it got outside, 25 kids inside would make it way hotter. And smellier.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    So in general when people talk about improved ventilation, they're _mostly_ not talking about opening a window (impractical in many places at certain times of year, anyway); they're talking about some sort of mechanical ventilation, particularly for large buildings. Improving that sort of thing is expensive.
- redisman 4y ago
  In (most?) building this would also mean replacing the HVAC system and ducts which would take months-years and close the building down for the maintenance period. I’m really not sure what the pitch is realistically.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    How about systematically examining the current performance and likely retrofit cost of existing larger buildings? Then the discussion can be about a more specific cost (and time) estimate and include better information about the changes the updates would bring about. Or we could just assume it is too expensive and inconvenient to be worth looking into.
jeromegv 4y ago
Even at the height of the pandemic, it was quite frustrating to see so little public places taking easy measures like keeping the doors/windows open, but focusing so much energy on arrows on the floor or non-sense like that. Increased ventilation even helps with concentrating in school, as high CO2 is not good for schooling. I used to fall asleep all the time while I was in school, elementary, secondary, university, even staring at a computer. Now that I work from home, I never fall asleep that way. I was clearly just so tired from high CO2.
- toyg 4y ago
  In my experience, that sleepiness might also be due to forced sleep patterns, commuting, and heavy food - things that you likely experienced in school but not now.
- fullstop 4y ago
  > I never fall asleep that way. I was clearly just so tired from high CO2. I thought that Mass was just boring in elementary school. Perhaps there was more to it than that!
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  You put the arrows down once and the signs up once. Opening windows and doors and managing airflow is a constant effort. Installing better ventilation can get costly. Cheaper to just do the theater.
taeric 4y ago
It is more of a local feel, honestly. Many on twitter and around the schools I do go to seem convinced that if the rest of the nation had just been as good at masking as we were, they would have not had it as bad. And that if we are diligent in the future, we wouldn't have as severe of outbreaks. I can't even really say they are wrong. I don't know. My weight would be more on our 90%ish percent vaccination rate, but I could see both having impact. Edit: I'm actually somewhat skeptical that ventilation will work as well as folks hope. Living in a place that largely does rely on outside air, we had just as large of outbreaks as anyone else. (That is, it is common to have open windows here. The kid's schools are even made to take advantage of that, if I understand it correctly.) Again, I am /not/ saying it is wrong. I just doubt it weighs as heavily as portrayed.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  What is your definition of "work"? Of course better ventilation won't outright stop diseases from spreading, the point is that it will reduce the spread with reasonable cost and little downside (like another commenter mentions, if the existing ventilation isn't keeping up with CO2 concentrations, there can be other benefits).
  - taeric 4y ago
    From what I saw with our schools.... it didn't really cut the spread. Estimates are that the school had just as high of spread as elsewhere. And that is with near 100% vaccination of the kids in said school. I should note I'm not against trying. It seems a low hanging fruit to reach for. Just, evidence has shown that this particular disease goes for saturation fairly effectively.
    - jeromegv 4y ago
      Which evidence? You just quoted absolutely zero evidence beside your own personal anecdotes. It's an airborne disease. Better aeration definitely helps with airborne diseases, multiple studies prove it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17257148/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17257148/ But of course, COVID spreads so easily that this can reach the limit (especially Omicron) and in an environment where kids will interact together in all kind of ways, but this would have definitely helped a lot more in the first few waves (pre-omicron) without needing to shut down schools entirely.
ajmurmann 4y ago
There are also other, novel things we could do to fight infectious diseases that get pretty much no traction. Far-range UVC lights immediately come to mind. These kill viruses and single-celled organisms quickly while not harming humans. Just imagine this installed in all public, closed spaces! Schools, offices, restaurants, public transit all could be heavily reduced in how well any infectious diseases gets spread there. Yet, this is almost entirely absent from public discourse. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67211-2
- nradov 4y ago
  Beware of unintended consequences. Humans evolved with constant exposure to pathogens. Living in overly sterile environments seems to be a risk factor for autoimmune disorders.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    I wonder if we could address this by not activating the lights everywhere all the time. Always on in hospitals and other places with vulnerable people. Only on in restaurants and public transit during time of increased thread like a pandemic or maybe flu season, since that in fact kills a lot of people.
Izkata 4y ago
> I am kind of fascinated that there is so little call to do things like improve ventilation. There's some, but people haven't seemed to catch on that we could do things to reduce disease that cause ~no individual inconvenience. People still think SARS-CoV-2 spreads by droplets, so in their minds things like that wouldn't do anything.
argonaut 4y ago
You didn't see many scientists saying this. But early on in the pandemic many people were saying Covid would be completely over if everyone masked for a month, or if we locked down for a month, etc. I saw this a lot within my own network of very liberal, twenty-something peers. Some people still believe this, albeit probably a small minority now.
- dv_dt 4y ago
  But it was over in multiple nations that did take the precautions seriously ... only to come back when they somehow were convinced to relax the recommendations.
- scotty79 4y ago
  > But early on in the pandemic many people were saying Covid would be completely over if everyone masked for a month, or if we locked down for a month, It's technically true if every single person on Earth did this at the same time. Which is impossible, so no.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Is it, though? Feels unlikely that we could eliminate any corona virus that way.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ajross 4y ago

> I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. Sorry, who "seems to think this?". I haven't seen this claim, or anything like it, anywhere. The point many were making was that the overwhelmingly successful suppression of all these other diseases was clear proof that "masks work" to suppress disease, and by extension that we should wear them to effect the suppression of a much more dangerous pandemic. So when there's a largely uncontrolled pandemic happening, you should wear a mask. Now, general immunity seems to have reached a point where the pandemic is at least reasonably controlled without mitigation strategies. Covid of mid-2022 is now a worrisome endemic disease, comparable to (but yet rather more dangerous than) the worst flu seasons we've seen in the past century (since 1918). So... we can take our masks off now (most of us, admitting that some people have different levels of risk tolerance, etc...). The calculus changes because the facts on the ground have changed. None of that is an argument that you shouldn't have worn a mask in late 2020. You absolutely should have, and it remains horrifying to me that so many of us didn't.

taeric 4y ago
Oddly, you are making the claim I question here. This "proof that masks work" is likely more just proof that not having kids in schools cuts a lot of spread. I really cannot underscore enough how much more sick you will get when you have kids in school than when you don't. And homeschool isn't really an answer here, sadly. It is fairly well documented that kids that come out of homeschool and finally enter a workforce or other social environment are at a heightened risk of sicknesses that the general populace just doesn't notice. Edit: I hasten to add that I agree this is not an argument that masks don't work. And I don't understand why some folks still insist on fighting not to wear them.
- superkuh 4y ago
  Before we can have a debate about "masks" we have to define what masks are. It's undeniably clear that wearing actual respirator N95 or ffp2 masks that are fit to the face work in preventing infection and spread. That's just physics. But when most are only wearing a partial covering "mask" that just blocks spittle of course it's not going to prevent infecting or infection by an aerosol spread disease. The real problem with "masks" was that our governments' intentionally lied about the need for them at the start of the pandemic. The messaging never recovered from this and I imagine even if government health institutions stated the truth today, that face fit respirators are required, it'd just be ignored. The problem wasn't ever actual masks, it was people lying about them and people not wearing them. Sure, unfit "masks" might have some mitigation potential and it's better than wearing nothing. But masks, in the context of an aerosol spread infection, have to mean fit respirator masks.

mikhailt 4y ago

Unfortunately, there is a lot of intentional and unintentional misinformation going around. Mask was not meant to "eradicate" anything, that was not the intent. The same thing with lockdowns, it was not meant to eradicate anything. The original intent back in the very early stage of the pandemic is to slow down the pace of hospitalizations (or as they market it, flatting the curve); the best way to do that is to slow down the number of people getting sick. What were the best solutions? 1. Be vigilant with cleaning up and avoiding contact with sick folks (self) 2. Stay home if you're sick, wear masks and so on. (self) 3. Lock down when it was getting out of control. (community) Also, this can have an impact on reducing the variants by having less hosts to infect and to mutate but this failed, so we're likely to stick with COVID for a very long time like the cold and flu. People should still be masking up if they're sick and can't stay home.

SkyPuncher 4y ago

> I am amused that folks seem to think we could eradicate so many widespread diseases with just masks. This is a claim that is novel to me. Masks help limit transmission. The immediate benefit is likely reducing transmission between an interaction of random people. A secondary, less supported benefit, is the reduction of viral load in transmissions - which can help reduce severity of an infection. This is not shocking when you consider the fact that surgeons have worn masks for a long time - with nearly the sole intention of reducing infection in their patients (albeit, not necessarily airborne infections). ----- IMO, people should be more outraged that the gov't did seemingly little to actually increase the healthcare's system to accommodate COVID patients. My understanding is mask mandates were almost always tied to significant capacity restrictions in the healthcare system. The idea of wearing masks was to create a buffer for healthcare to catch up.

nradov 4y ago
Surgeons have primarily worn masks and other PPE to reduce the risk of bacterial infections in open wounds, and protect themselves against bodily fluids. Protecting against respiratory viruses is something quite different. The mask mandates implemented in most places were always pointless pandemic theater. Only a properly fitted (i.e. tightly sealed with no facial hair) N95 or equivalent does much to block transmission of a highly contagious respiratory virus. It was never realistic to get the general public to do that.