3 ms·
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
by 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.
- taeric 4y agoI think you also need to consider direction of spread. It is easy to see how spread from an individual is cut with masks. Spread to the individual is almost certainly affected, but to really cut it down, you almost certainly need gloves and a ton of hand washing going on. But, again, I am /not/ arguing against masks. I fully agree that if you are sick, stay home and wear a mask when you do go out. My point is that much of the reduction is more easily explained with "stay home" than it was "a lot of folks were wearing masks." I further agree that both had an likely had an impact. But, just as having a more streamlined car will give you better gas mileage, if you are trying to make a bigger impact, you are almost certainly better focusing on buses than you are personal vehicles.