3 ms·

>Of course masks work well at protecting you - why do you think people wear masks when exposed to dust? Is that really it? That's all you need to conclude mask

>Of course masks work well at protecting you - why do you think people wear masks when exposed to dust? Is that really it? That's all you need to conclude masks are effective at preventing the spread of airborne disease?

aredox 2y ago
No, there is plenty of experiments and analysis comparing protection from the "emitter" and protection for the "receptor" Mechanically, masks fit better when one inhales than when one exhales.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  You're aware that there are studies specifically trying to find out how well masks work at reducing the spread of covid, yes? https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... I wonder why we're studying this...
taylodl 2y ago
Over 100 years of medical use helps, too. You know, the idea of using masks to prevent the spread of infectious disease isn't exactly a new idea and is widely employed by medical staff every single day.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Masks are worn by surgeons to protect the patient in case spittle drops into them whilst the surgeons lean over them. It isn't to stop the spread of respiratory illness, at which they are completely ineffective and always have been.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    You do know that the surgical theater isn't the only place masks are used, right?
    - telotortium 2y ago
      My impression of mask effectiveness for aerosolized illnesses like COVID (it doesn't spread primarily through spittle, unlike what a lot of public health authorities assumed early on in the pandemic when the initial mask recommendations were made), after reading the arguments on both sides during the pandemic, is that they can be usefully analogized to birth control methods: - Surgical masks: douching after sex. Probably has some small effectiveness compared to doing nothing, but shouldn't be considered as a serious method to prevent propagation. - N95-level masks to prevent transmission: coitus interruptus. Definitely effective, but also almost impossible to use at anything resembling 100% effectiveness. With coitus interruptus, pre-ejaculate and general inability to precisely control ejaculation mean the method will assuredly fail after a while. Analogously, N95 masks would probably significantly reduce transmission if everyone used them, although probably not to 0. But outside of hospitals, compliance is probably not strong enough to significantly affect the progress of an infection wave. - N95-level masks to protect against infection (including masks with vents): condoms. Almost 100% effective if used perfectly, but can easily still mess it up on occasion. N95 effectiveness is much worse than condoms in practice outside of hospitals because masks have to be worn for the majority of the day, unlike condoms, which are only worn during the sex act itself. - Abstinence: staying away from any carriers. Unlike with sex, almost impossible to do for a contagious respiratory cold-like pandemic like COVID.
- pixxel 2y ago
  JFC there’s no helping you types.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    Are you responding to me?

aredox 2y ago

No, there is plenty of experiments and analysis comparing protection from the "emitter" and protection for the "receptor" Mechanically, masks fit better when one inhales than when one exhales.

zero-sharp 2y ago
You're aware that there are studies specifically trying to find out how well masks work at reducing the spread of covid, yes? https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD... I wonder why we're studying this...

taylodl 2y ago

Over 100 years of medical use helps, too. You know, the idea of using masks to prevent the spread of infectious disease isn't exactly a new idea and is widely employed by medical staff every single day.

mike_hearn 2y ago
Masks are worn by surgeons to protect the patient in case spittle drops into them whilst the surgeons lean over them. It isn't to stop the spread of respiratory illness, at which they are completely ineffective and always have been.
- taylodl 2y ago
  You do know that the surgical theater isn't the only place masks are used, right?
  - telotortium 2y ago
    My impression of mask effectiveness for aerosolized illnesses like COVID (it doesn't spread primarily through spittle, unlike what a lot of public health authorities assumed early on in the pandemic when the initial mask recommendations were made), after reading the arguments on both sides during the pandemic, is that they can be usefully analogized to birth control methods: - Surgical masks: douching after sex. Probably has some small effectiveness compared to doing nothing, but shouldn't be considered as a serious method to prevent propagation. - N95-level masks to prevent transmission: coitus interruptus. Definitely effective, but also almost impossible to use at anything resembling 100% effectiveness. With coitus interruptus, pre-ejaculate and general inability to precisely control ejaculation mean the method will assuredly fail after a while. Analogously, N95 masks would probably significantly reduce transmission if everyone used them, although probably not to 0. But outside of hospitals, compliance is probably not strong enough to significantly affect the progress of an infection wave. - N95-level masks to protect against infection (including masks with vents): condoms. Almost 100% effective if used perfectly, but can easily still mess it up on occasion. N95 effectiveness is much worse than condoms in practice outside of hospitals because masks have to be worn for the majority of the day, unlike condoms, which are only worn during the sex act itself. - Abstinence: staying away from any carriers. Unlike with sex, almost impossible to do for a contagious respiratory cold-like pandemic like COVID.
pixxel 2y ago
JFC there’s no helping you types.
- taylodl 2y ago
  Are you responding to me?