4 ms·

I hear ya, I'm with ya on every single point. Except... I would stake my fortune that the difference between 70% effectiveness and 99% effectiveness in a moni

I hear ya, I'm with ya on every single point. Except... I would stake my fortune that the difference between 70% effectiveness and 99% effectiveness in a monitored study is going to be reduced into a rounding error in the real world. There are so many factors to control for when it comes to how they get used, how good they fit, how much they trap moisture over a long day, how much their performance degrades, etc. For the purpose of preventing most incidental exposures, I would think that at the end of the day anything that prevents direct airflow is going to perform practically the same. In my case, I was exclusively using N95s when I caught Covid back in the day, and it was probably for a myriad of ways that I was using the mask wrong or making other bad choices. The mask itself being 99% effective probably didn't significantly change my odds when I had to wear it 14 hours a day.

contravariant 2y ago
Well there's also the issue of range, those 30% of particles might well have far less velocity. Which might be all that you need in a well ventilated area, or might be a meaningless difference in a busy room. Frankly I don't know, and I don't mind admitting I don't know. What worries me greatly though is that at some point saying you didn't know was misconstrued as an attack on ideology. I mean if I had to guess I'd go for something blocking 99% of the viruses at least 70% of the time over something blocking 70% of the particles at least 99% of the time. Of course it depends, but one of those works to some extent at least 70% of the time, while for the other it is unclear. But really it depends. If we're talking about umbrellas those two scenarios result in you getting roughly equally wet, yet if we're talking about bullet proof shields I'd take my chances with the shield stopping most bullets at least some of the time over the one stopping only 2 out of 3 bullets.

contravariant 2y ago

Well there's also the issue of range, those 30% of particles might well have far less velocity. Which might be all that you need in a well ventilated area, or might be a meaningless difference in a busy room. Frankly I don't know, and I don't mind admitting I don't know. What worries me greatly though is that at some point saying you didn't know was misconstrued as an attack on ideology. I mean if I had to guess I'd go for something blocking 99% of the viruses at least 70% of the time over something blocking 70% of the particles at least 99% of the time. Of course it depends, but one of those works to some extent at least 70% of the time, while for the other it is unclear. But really it depends. If we're talking about umbrellas those two scenarios result in you getting roughly equally wet, yet if we're talking about bullet proof shields I'd take my chances with the shield stopping most bullets at least some of the time over the one stopping only 2 out of 3 bullets.