Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

We do know that masks work, both from 'common' sense and through experiment

We do? Please share. We know they can significantly slow the propulsion of some percentage of large droplets from a cough or a sneeze, for example, but I haven't seen any controlled experiments that simply measure the volume of aerosolized viral particles in a closed space over time using people who have tested positive for COVID. With so many asymptomatic infections, it seems to me that such an experiment should not be very difficult to perform using a variety of mask types to measure their real effectiveness, but I haven't found anything in my searching.

 

[TimFL]

You can still be a host for the virus and infect others without vaccination. You can also still get sick from the virus, although the chance is small. But then again, this is the US with the vast majority of the population believing this virus to be a hoax anyways.

 

[Raven117]

We do know that masks work, both from 'common' sense and through experiment but that is an ideal situation quite far removed from mask mandates.

Yes, indeed, common sense would indicate that the fibers of cloth masks are too large to stop viral loads.

 

[Raven117]

You can still be a host for the virus and infect others without vaccination. You can also still get sick from the virus, although the chance is small. But then again, this is the US with the vast majority of the population believing this virus to be a hoax anyways.

Without a vaccination? I mean, did you just say that someone can be sick and spread it? Because yeah.

With a vaccination? Nope, false. Spreading the virus is exceedingly small. Its possible to get sick, but again, SMALL. People have actually start understanding what small percentages even freakin means. I swear, some people see .01% and read it as 70%.

 

[BouncyFrag]

Yes, indeed, common sense would indicate that the fibers of cloth masks are too large to stop viral loads.

It’s like putting up a chain link fence to keep out the mosquitos.

 

[poppabk]

We do? Please share. We know they can significantly slow the propulsion of some percentage of large droplets from a cough or a sneeze, for example, but I haven't seen any controlled experiments that simply measure the volume of aerosolized viral particles in a closed space over time using people who have tested positive for COVID. With so many asymptomatic infections, it seems to me that such an experiment should not be very difficult to perform using a variety of mask types to measure their real effectiveness, but I haven't found anything in my searching.

Measuring the dispersal of nm size viral particles sounds extremely hard to do. Measuring droplets in the micron range is a pretty good evaluation of mask effectiveness as those are the droplets that would contain the virus.

 

[Raven117]

It’s like putting up a chain link fence to keep out the mosquitos.

Yup.

 

[Pagusas]

You can still be a host for the virus and infect others without vaccination. You can also still get sick from the virus, although the chance is small. But then again, this is the US with the vast majority of the population believing this virus to be a hoax anyways.

And? You can also get sick from the flu and cold... that doesnt shurt down society. We can't let this shut us down anymore either. If you aren't vaccinated, thats because YOU made that choice, and you take on all responsibility for yourself now. Its not societies job to protect you when you they gave you a tool to protect yourself and you choose not to use it. Everyone has the right to make their own choice regarding the vacinne, and they should take responsibility for whatever choice they make. If we were still limited on vaccines It would be different, but we arent, any adult that wants one can now get one.

 

[DeepBreath87]

When actually dig into the “studies” that support the mask arguments, you almost inevitably find they are incredibly weak. “The one coffee shop” or “a couple of hairstyles” are the foundation. It’s almost all anecdote and implication. Why, after a year, wouldn’t we have been able to provide any actual laboratory studies to support the use of widespread, single layer masks, if the benefit is so profound?

 

[Rentahamster]

OK. Even just looking at that first study linked in NPR, though, you read that and were satisfied with its rigorous science as evidence of masks working? Luckily it's a short one, so I read through it and I certainly am not convinced.

This is why I linked several. It makes a plausible case that it's more likely they work than not.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yes, indeed, common sense would indicate that the fibers of cloth masks are too large to stop viral loads.

The virus is carried via droplets in your breath. These droplets are large enough to be restricted or disrupted by a cloth mask.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Measuring the dispersal of nm size viral particles sounds extremely hard to do. Measuring droplets in the micron range is a pretty good evaluation of mask effectiveness as those are the droplets that would contain the virus.

There are ways to measure the viral particles in the air. It's exactly how agencies have measured that aerosolized viral particles can stay in the air for hours. It really should not be a difficult experiment for any facility with the right equipment and it would answer, unequivocally, the effectiveness of different face coverings specifically in regards to COVID-19. If I was faced with undeniable evidence that masks are effective at significantly reducing viral spread and infection, then I would happily jump on the bandwagon and even become an evangelist for wearing them. I was on the bandwagon briefly last year despite being skeptical, but it's absurd that the only studies that have come out all seem to be extremely flawed, show weak correlations at best, largely rely on after-the-fact inconclusive and arbitrarily organized data, and even sometimes use self reports about mask usage (without differentiating between type of masks, etc.).

The virus is carried via droplets in your breath. These droplets are large enough to be restricted or disrupted by a cloth mask.

It's also carried simply through the breath that exits your lungs, not just droplets. Those droplets also dry up and your continuing to breath through the same mask almost certainly causes you to expel them into the air. The viral particles are absolutely tiny. Certainly smaller than smoke particles, which we know are not even remotely blocked by cloth and surgical masks.

This is why I linked several. It makes a plausible case that it's more likely they work than not.

Why did you start with an extremely weak one, then? Which of the studies you linked do you think is most convincing?

 

[Rentahamster]

It's also carried simply through the breath that exits your lungs, not just droplets. Those droplets also dry up and your continuing to breath through the same mask almost certainly causes you to expel them into the air. The viral particles are absolutely tiny. Certainly smaller than smoke particles, which we know are not even remotely blocked by cloth and surgical masks.

Your breath consists of many of these droplets. When I say droplets, I don't mean droplets the size of a rain drop or even half that or a tenth that. Our breath contains moist air composed of many very small droplets that contain the virus. These very small droplets are still large enough to be impeded by cloth masks. The mask itself also disrupts the air currents from your breath, so that instead of your breath having a range of 6 feet, it now has a shorter range. Any virus particles that escape the physical barrier of the cloth will be carried on air currents that have less velocity due to the mask barrier.

Smoke particles are not blocked by a mask, but vaping in a mask, for example, demonstrates the second point I made about the air being contained to your immediate area instead of being propelled outwards.

(the middle finger gesture in the second pic is unrelated to my point)

Why did you start with an extremely weak one, then? Which of the studies you linked do you think is most convincing?

Dude, the order that I listed them is an irrelevant argument. C'mon now. They're listed in no particular order.

They're convincing when taken as a whole since they all show a measurable level of protection when comparing data pre-mask and then post-mask.

 

[Rentahamster]

There are ways to measure the viral particles in the air. It's exactly how agencies have measured that aerosolized viral particles can stay in the air for hours. It really should not be a difficult experiment for any facility with the right equipment and it would answer, unequivocally, the effectiveness of different face coverings specifically in regards to COVID-19. If I was faced with undeniable evidence that masks are effective at significantly reducing viral spread and infection, then I would happily jump on the bandwagon and even become an evangelist for wearing them.

It shouldn't be difficult because it's not.

Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2)...

msphere.asm.org

The potential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via infective droplets and aerosols (1), coupled with guidelines from the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html) and WHO (https://www.who.int/emergencies/dis...9/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks) recommending the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19), prompted us to evaluate the protective efficiency of face masks against airborne transmission of infectious SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols.

Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown. Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission.

We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks and determine whether they need additional equipment to protect themselves from infected patients.

A test chamber for airborne transmission experiments was constructed in a biosafety level 3 (BSL3) facility, and two mannequin heads were placed facing each other. One mannequin head was connected to a customized compressor nebulizer and exhaled a mist of virus suspension through its mouth, mimicking a virus spreader. The nebulizer was charged with 6 ml of virus suspension at the viral doses in culture medium indicated in Fig. 2 (without fetal calf serum) or diluted in phosphate-buffered saline to generate droplets/aerosols, and the respiration was exhaled continuously, simulating a mild cough at a flow speed of 2 m/s (2) for 20 min. Although the initial particle size exhaled was 5.5 ± 0.2 μm in mass median diameter (particle size percentages were as follows: <3 μm, 20%; 3 to 5 μm, 40%; >5 to 8 μm, 40% [3]), some of the droplets likely gradually evaporated and changed to aerosols. Therefore, both droplets and aerosols were likely present in the chamber. The other mannequin head was connected to an artificial ventilator through a virus particle collection unit. Tidal breathing, conducted by the artificial ventilator, was set to a lung ventilation rate representative of a steady state in adults. Face masks were attached to the mannequin heads, and the viral loads and infective virus that passed through the masks were measured by use of a plaque assay and quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR), respectively.

Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away (Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask (Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape (Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy (Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols (Fig. 2D and E).

A short news clip about the study:


Alternatively, you can watch these insightful Youtube videos where they replicate experiments that others have done.

 

[DragoonKain]

The studies that say masks don't work are all generally based, which means they count the general population which includes instances where people aren't wearing masks near one another. For example: City X's infection rate didn't decrease much once the mask mandate started. That doesn't prove those wearing masks were the ones spreading it or getting it or if the ones who got it were wearing masks at the time they contracted the virus.

The only way it can be accurately studied is comparing directly people standing in a room who have COVID with other people in a room who don't have COVID without masks, and then people standing in a room with COVID with other people in the room who don't have COVID with masks and compare how many people get it in those controlled circumstances. And also you'll also have to factor in the masks worn and if they're worn properly in the latter. For example, N95 will likely have less spread compared to cloth masks, and those who pull the masks down to talk or whatever will factor in as well.

 

[Rentahamster]

The only way it can be accurately studied is comparing directly people standing in a room who have COVID with other people in a room who don't have COVID without masks, and then people standing in a room with COVID with other people in the room who don't have COVID with masks and compare how many people get it in those controlled circumstances.

That kind of experiment would be extremely unethical.

No, that's not the "only" way you could do it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Your breath consists of many of these droplets. When I say droplets, I don't mean droplets the size of a rain drop or even half that or a tenth that. Our breath contains moist air composed of many very small droplets that contain the virus. These very small droplets are still large enough to be impeded by cloth masks. The mask itself also disrupts the air currents from your breath, so that instead of your breath having a range of 6 feet, it now has a shorter range. Any virus particles that escape the physical barrier of the cloth will be carried on air currents that have less velocity due to the mask barrier.

Smoke particles are not blocked by a mask, but vaping in a mask, for example, demonstrates the second point I made about the air being contained to your immediate area instead of being propelled outwards.

(the middle finger gesture in the second pic is unrelated to my point)

Yeah, I know all of this stuff and am not trying to say any of it is not true. With that said, even with reduced forward propulsion, the air still moves and flows within the confined space. The more you breathe, the more particles you are releasing into the air. If this is a confined space (an indoor scenario, where most infections occur), then I would assume that, eventually, the viral particles are going to reach some level of critical mass throughout the entire space. It's not like your mask is filtering them out of existence.

The question is then whether or not the reduction in forward propulsion is enough to significantly reduce infection. I am extremely skeptical about this, but like I said, it seems like it should not be hard to at least measure the volume of airborne viral particles in a closed space with masks vs. no masks.

Dude, the order that I listed them is an irrelevant argument. C'mon now. They're listed in no particular order.

They're convincing when taken as a whole since they all show a measurable level of protection when comparing data pre-mask and then post-mask.

Do you think it's fair to say that the Kansas one actually shows that to the degree that the reduction can be attributed to masks? I would strongly disagree.

The only way it can be accurately studied is comparing directly people standing in a room who have COVID with other people in a room who don't have COVID without masks, and then people standing in a room with COVID with other people in the room who don't have COVID with masks and compare how many people get it in those controlled circumstances. And also you'll also have to factor in the masks worn and if they're worn properly in the latter. For example, N95 will likely have less spread compared to cloth masks, and those who pull the masks down to talk or whatever will factor in as well.

You shouldn't need to actually infect people to measure that rate at which viral particles spread throughout a confined space in a mask vs. no mask situation.

 

[DeepBreath87]

The mask argument is largely irrelevant now. At least in the US. I think most people who are very pro mask are acting in good faith. They think it helps and it may help to a degree depending on a number of variables like type of mask, airflow, humidity, etc.

However, the overzealous policing of personal behavior with regards to masks was always ridiculous and counter productive. And that has never been more true than it is right now. With the wide availability of highly effective vaccines, the time of masking is effectively over.

 

[DragoonKain]

That kind of experiment would be extremely unethical.

No, that's not the "only" way you could do it.

Of course it's unethical, it's also hypothetical.

I think it's common sense masks work, but if you want irrefutable proof that people aren't going to argue against anymore, well then...

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The mask argument is largely irrelevant now. At least in the US. I think most people who are very pro mask are acting in good faith. They think it helps and it may help to a degree depending on a number of variables like type of mask, airflow, humidity, etc.

However, the overzealous policing of personal behavior with regards to masks was always ridiculous and counter productive. And that has never been more true than it is right now. With the wide availability of highly effective vaccines, the time of masking is effectively over.

I still think it's important to truly get to the bottom of it. Mask wearing was largely seen in the same way as Eastern Medicine by major medical authorities and there are plenty of studies indicating that they had little effect at helping prevent seasonal influenza or the common cold at all. This is part of why the WHO and CDC more or less recommended against the general public wearing them. Even in Japan, where wearing face masks when you had a cold and still went into work or school was common, most of the populace didn't actually believe they provided much protection.

Everything changed with COVID, though, despite there not being any hard evidence of their effectiveness.

Personally, I do not want to wear masks, but if it is clearly shown that they are actually effective at significantly (more than just a few percentage points) reducing viral spread in closed environments, I will be fine with wearing them during flu seasons, etc. We have a perfect scenario to "do the science" and settle this once and for all. We will still have influenza, colds, and likely future SARS outbreaks in the future, so knowing conclusively the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of different face coverings will help guide policy.

 

[terintamel]

While it can be shown that properly fitted and worn masks can be effective in certain situations and under certain circumstances, my position is that mask mandates are highly ineffective at preventing viral spread for some of the following reasons.

• You cannot effectively police the mask material or type.
• You cannot police or mandate how long someone should wear it before replacing it. A wet and saturated mask is as bad if not worse than no mask at all.
• You cannot police if people touch their mask or how often they touch it or if they wash their hands before or after they touch it. Constantly touching it to readjust it is just spreading any possible contamination all around.

An example would be I was at the store and saw an old man with his mask on. He looked ill. He then lowered his mask to blow his nose into what looked to be a used tissue. He then used that same hand to put back on his mask and did not clean his hands. How do you police that?

Medical professionals have very specific procedures they follow in regards to masks and are trained in how to use them properly. You average citizen and especially children are not.

While I admit I did not watch all the above videos I do suspect that none of those tests took into account how the average person wears a mask and for how long before they replace it. The were most likely controlled environments assuming proper fit for a very limited amount of time. Not the 4-6hours kids/teachers had to wear them at school. Not the hours people have to wear them at work.

So can mask slow the spread of Covid or other viruses? My answer is yes but it depends on what your wear and how you use it. Do I think mask mandates work to slow the spread of Covid? I would say very little to not at all due to the issues I listed above.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah, I know all of this stuff and am not trying to say any of it is not true.

Okay, but if you really know all this stuff, you would know why your next sentences detailing your assumption doesn't make any sense.

With that said, even with reduced forward propulsion, the air still moves and flows within the confined space. The more you breathe, the more particles you are releasing into the air. If this is a confined space (an indoor scenario, where most infections occur), then I would assume that, eventually, the viral particles are going to reach some level of critical mass throughout the entire space. It's not like your mask is filtering them out of existence.

Particles aren't infinitely airborne. Nor do they accumulate into some kind of "critical mass". Does the CO2 you exhale reach a "critical mass" throughout the entire space? No it doesn't. Your mask isn't filtering them out of existence, they're blocking them from spreading around in the environment and potentially contacting others.

Do you think it's fair to say that the Kansas one actually shows that to the degree that the reduction can be attributed to masks? I would strongly disagree.

Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise.

"This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID," says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.

Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks.

Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings.


It shows that there was a measurable drop in cases. You can't know whether or not it was all due to the mask, but the association makes a plausible case for it. That, combined with all the other data showing a positive correlation or increased protection with mask wearing should tell you something.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Okay, but if you really know all this stuff, you would know why your next sentences detailing your assumption doesn't make any sense.

Particles aren't infinitely airborne. Nor do they accumulate into some kind of "critical mass". Does the CO2 you exhale reach a "critical mass" throughout the entire space? No it doesn't. Your mask isn't filtering them out of existence, they're blocking them from spreading around in the environment and potentially contacting others.

Potentially, yes, but we do not know for certain. With that said, it seems like it should be a very easy experiment to confirm. I wish someone would do it.

It shows that there was a measurable drop in cases. You can't know whether or not it was all due to the mask, but the association makes a plausible case for it. That, combined with all the other data showing a positive correlation or increased protection with mask wearing should tell you something.

A measurable drop in cases after a massive and severe spike. Comparing the two seemed extremely flawed to me when their infection trajectories were completely different from the outset. I suppose we've talked enough about this one, though.

 

[Raven117]

The virus is carried via droplets in your breath. These droplets are large enough to be restricted or disrupted by a cloth mask.

Zefah has addressed this enough, so I wont weigh in.

That said, who gives a shit at this point? Sorry your virus lost. Sorry that we are getting back to normal. Sorry that we aren't wearing masks in perpetuity. Its fucking over.

 

[Raven117]

Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks.

Also, you have to consider the WAY people were wearing masks. Like in a resturant where you can have it off at a table, but not while walking around. At a gym where you can gave it off while lifting, but on while walking around.

Pure freakin' theater my dude. You desperately want the mask thing to be true. You want to be able to virtue signal. You want to be able to tell who the "Trump" supporters are who don't wear them. You want to feel like you were doing your part for the virus.

In reality, it probably just came down to less density of people out doing things. Nothing to do with some dumb ass mask on or off or even worn correctly.

 

[Rentahamster]

I still think it's important to truly get to the bottom of it. Mask wearing was largely seen in the same way as Eastern Medicine by major medical authorities and there are plenty of studies indicating that they had little effect at helping prevent seasonal influenza or the common cold at all. This is part of why the WHO and CDC more or less recommended against the general public wearing them.

No, people like Fauci were discouraging mask use at the time because they thought a mass panic buy of masks would lead to a shortage among medical workers.

Fauci Explains Why Public Wasn't Told to Wear Masks When Pandemic Began

Dr. Anthony Fauci explains the purpose of masks and why the American public wasn't immediately told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic first took hold in the U.S.

www.thestreet.com

So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

"Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."

Even in Japan, where wearing face masks when you had a cold and still went into work or school was common, most of the populace didn't actually believe they provided much protection.

As someone who lived in Japan, how can you think that? Did everyone tell you that? Because they all told me something else. Granted, the largest motivator is social pressure, but that doesn't mean they don't think masks work. There was a survey done last year about this, showing how it's mostly peer pressure, but the agreement that it's for protection was neutral, IIRC.

 

[Raven117]

As someone who lived in Japan, how can you think that? Did everyone tell you that? Because they all told me something else. Granted, the largest motivator is social pressure but that doesn't mean they don't think masks work. There was a survey done last year about this, showing how it's mostly peer pressure, but the agreement that it's for protection was neutral, IIRC.

lol.

 

[Rentahamster]

That said, who gives a shit at this point?

Apparently you.

Sorry your virus lost.

MY virus? What is that supposed to mean?

Sorry that we are getting back to normal.

I'm not. The faster we get back to normal in a safe manner the better.

Pure freakin' theater my dude. You desperately want the mask thing to be true. You want to be able to virtue signal. You want to be able to tell who the "Trump" supporters are who don't wear them. You want to feel like you were doing your part for the virus.

My dude, you're trying to read my mind over the internet which is a red flag that you're projecting and overly emotional.

I'm just looking at the data and evaluating it on its own merit. You're trying to analyze this based on feelings, not facts.

 

[Rentahamster]

lol.

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No, people like Fauci were discouraging mask use at the time because they thought a mass panic buy of masks would lead to a shortage among medical workers.

Fauci Explains Why Public Wasn't Told to Wear Masks When Pandemic Began

Dr. Anthony Fauci explains the purpose of masks and why the American public wasn't immediately told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic first took hold in the U.S.

www.thestreet.com

I have nothing positive to say about Dr. Fauci, so I'll not comment on that, but what about the WHO?

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

www.cnn.com

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,"

Yes, they were concerned about PPE shortages, too, but the point they made about "no evidence of potential benefit," and "evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly" certainly still stands, no?

As someone who lived in Japan, how can you think that? Did everyone tell you that? Because they all told me something else. Granted, the largest motivator is social pressure, but that doesn't mean they don't think masks work. There was a survey done last year about this, showing how it's mostly peer pressure, but the agreement that it's for protection was neutral, IIRC.

OK, your anecdote vs. mine.

 

[Raven117]

Apparently you.

MY virus? What is that supposed to mean?

I'm not. The faster we get back to normal in a safe manner the better.

My dude, you're trying to read my mind over the internet which is a red flag that you're projecting and overly emotional.

I'm just looking at the data and evaluating it on its own merit. You're trying to analyze this based on feelings, not facts.

I can read your mind. Sorry things are quickly becoming normal again.

(joking aside). I am looking forward to years from now, after the politics of all of this dies down, where we actually get a good answer on this. All of the science you have quoted is marginal improvement at best, and absolutely does not account for other control factors. (Same the other way really).

 

[SF Kosmo]

The studies that say masks don't work are all generally based, which means they count the general population which includes instances where people aren't wearing masks near one another. For example: City X's infection rate didn't decrease much once the mask mandate started. That doesn't prove those wearing masks were the ones spreading it or getting it or if the ones who got it were wearing masks at the time they contracted the virus.

Yeah these studies are about the effectiveness of mask mandates, not the effectiveness of masks. Turns out Americans are gonna wear or not wear masks regardless of what the government says.

 

[Rentahamster]

I can read your mind. Sorry things are quickly becoming normal again.

(joking aside). I am looking forward to years from now, after the politics of all of this dies down, where we actually get a good answer on this. All of the science you have quoted is marginal improvement at best, and absolutely does not account for other control factors. (Same the other way really).

I'm not the one bringing politics into any of this. All I've done is cite data.

This is not "marginal":

Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away (Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask (Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape (Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy (Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols (Fig. 2D and E).

 

[Rentahamster]

I have nothing positive to say about Dr. Fauci, so I'll not comment on that, but what about the WHO?

WHO stands by recommendation to not wear masks if you are not sick or not caring for someone who is sick | CNN

World Health Organization officials Monday said they still recommend people not wear face masks unless they are sick with Covid-19 or caring for someone who is sick.

www.cnn.com

"There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly,"

Yes, they were concerned about PPE shortages, too, but the point they made about "no evidence of potential benefit," and "evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly" certainly still stands, no?

Still stands? Why would it? That's old information. That was their comment at the time, but it changes as new information comes in. If you were to get new information that compels you to change course, but you don't change course, that would be stupid.

The WHO has lots of information encouraging mask use.

When and how to use masks

WHO's guidance and advice on the use of masks to protect against and limit the spread of COVID-19.

www.who.int

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Masks

www.who.int

This Reuters article also explains the timeline.

REFILE-Fact Check-The World Health Organisation supports mask-wearing to combat COVID-19, having updated its guidance in June 2020

Corrected paragraph formatting

www.reuters.com

 A Facebook post has questioned the reasoning behind making face masks compulsory after pointing to a video from the World Health Organisation (WHO) that advises there is no need to wear them if a person is not sick. This post is misleading as the WHO guidance is more than a year old and was issued more than a month before the WHO characterised the virus outbreak as a pandemic.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, however, swathes of evidence have emerged suggesting that mask-wearing does reduce transmission of COVID-19. The WHO changed its guidance in favour of masks on June 5, 2020, stating: “We have new research findings…that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.” (here).

The most up-to-date WHO advice on masks from Dec. 2020 is clear that: “Masks are a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.

“Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive ‘Do it all!’ approach including physical distancing, avoiding crowded, closed and close-contact settings, good ventilation, cleaning hands, covering sneezes and coughs, and more.”


The WHO advises that masks should be worn by the public in crowded settings or rooms with poor ventilation, but adds: “If you have any doubts, it’s safer to simply wear a mask.”

 

[Raven117]

I'm not the one bringing politics into any of this. All I've done is cite data.

This is not "marginal":

Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away (Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask (Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape (Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy (Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols (Fig. 2D and E).

N95 is something different completely. And still, that does not account for a multitude of other factors.

But, sadly, it politics is in your data. The way they went about it dictates outcomes. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is.

 

[Superkamikaze]

There's an anti vaxxer / anti mask person at work that is now pro mask, but says they can't get vaccinated. Saying it's irresponsible even for vaccinated people to stop wearing masks at work because it's risking unvaccinated people. I suggested they just wear a mask....

I don't even know wtf is going on anymore. lol

 

[Rentahamster]

N95 is something different completely. And still, that does not account for a multitude of other factors.

They sampled a range of different masks, not just N95. All versions conferred some level of protection.

Of course it doesn't account for other factors. That's what makes it a controlled test and scientifically accurate. If you want to take into account other factors that occur in a real live population, that's what the other studies are for which looks at prevalence of mask wearing and its association with infectious spread.

But, sadly, it politics is in your data. The way they went about it dictates outcomes. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is.

You need to justify this statement with evidence. It's not true just because that's the way you feel. It might very well be true, but I need more than "it is because I think so".

 

[Hulk_Smash]

You can still be a host for the virus and infect others without vaccination. You can also still get sick from the virus, although the chance is small. But then again, this is the US with the vast majority of the population believing this virus to be a hoax anyways.

OR

We are realizing life is a series of risks and maybe some people like myself have assessed the risk to be so low that it isn’t worth the “abundance of caution” bullshit that people have been pushing.

The virus isn’t a hoax. It is very real. It is also very much been blown out proportion. And with the exception of last December and January, none of the measures the governments have taken were worth the risks. None of the measures taken were accurately assessed for the amount of economic, educational, and psychological blowback that would result from harsh stay at home, mask wearing, and social distancing measures.

Lockdowns will be far more devastating in the long run than anything this virus could ever dream of doing.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Still stands? Why would it? That's old information. That was their comment at the time, but it changes as new information comes in. If you were to get new information that compels you to change course, but you don't change course, that would be stupid.

Pray tell, what new information brought about the change?

This wasn't just some random comment from a nobody, it was from Dr. Michael Ryan, a veteran epidemiologist of many WHO outbreak response teams for all sorts of diseases including SARS. A high ranking member of the World Health Organization with extensive knowledge of respiratory diseases and how best to respond to them. The WHO likely had the best access to any and all existing data about masks and respiratory diseases. That data informed their recommendations against masks for the wider public, especially due to concerns of them not being fitted properly or not being used properly.

So what changed between the end of March 2020 and the mass mandates a few short months later specifically in regards to COVID-19? Some significant new information must have come in for them to start recommending that everyone wear whatever face covering they could obtain (even by recycling bandanas and t-shirts or making simple cloth masks at home), knowing that the concerns about poor fitting or improper use (reusing the same mask over and over again) absolutely did not go away.

 

[Raven117]

They sampled a range of different masks, not just N95. All versions conferred some level of protection.

Of course it doesn't account for other factors. That's what makes it a controlled test and scientifically accurate. If you want to take into account other factors that occur in a real live population, that's what the other studies are for which looks at prevalence of mask wearing and its association with infectious spread.


You need to justify this statement with evidence. It's not true just because that's the way you feel. It might very well be true, but I need more than "it is because I think so".

Look no further than the the New York Times daily update on the pressures of "Groupthink" in science (this is as it related to the origination of the virus).

I absolutely loathe that this is the case now. I want to be able to trust that every scientist works without any prejudice as to outcome. But that's just not the case. In the end, these experiments are being run by humans, and humans, not matter how hard we try, are humans subject to our own biases.

 

[Raven117]

Lockdowns will be far more devastating in the long run than anything this virus could ever dream of doing.

This. Sadly. Look, I understand in the beginning that things were scary, but once it became about saving every mim-maw and not "crashing the healthcare system" it became overblown.

Protect the vulnerable populations (old people, and obese people...(yeah, the dirty secret of Covid is that it disporportinally killed obese people)), and let the rest of us get on with it. That would have been a much better deal. Instead, livlihoods have been stunted and set back years, if not ruined, all for the fact that most people who get the virus will live, will recover, and go on about their life. Thats science. Dems de facts.

 

[Rentahamster]

Look no further than the the New York Times daily update on the pressures of "Groupthink" in science (this is as it related to the origination of the virus).

I absolutely loathe that this is the case now. I want to be able to trust that every scientist works without any prejudice as to outcome. But that's just not the case. In the end, these experiments are being run by humans, and humans, not matter how hard we try, are humans subject to our own biases.

Just because some aspects are susceptible to groupthink doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's why you need to drill down at the individual studies and look for yourself if you think their methods make sense.

Yes, these experiments are being run by humans, who are subject to their own biases. You know who else is a human? You. By your logic I should discount everything you say too because you might be biased or be pushing an agenda on account of your humanness.

 

[poppabk]

Pure freakin' theater my dude. You desperately want the mask thing to be true. You want to be able to virtue signal. You want to be able to tell who the "Trump" supporters are who don't wear them. You want to feel like you were doing your part for the virus.

You appear to be locked in a very narrow world view.
I wear a mask and got vaccinated because I want things to get back to normal. Anywhere that says that you don't have to wear a mask, I don't. I don't really care that much if masks are effective (I think they help a little) - I do care that they facillitated businesses being able to operate during the pandemic.

 

[SF Kosmo]

OR

We are realizing life is a series of risks and maybe some people like myself have assessed the risk to be so low that it isn’t worth the “abundance of caution” bullshit that people have been pushing.

The virus isn’t a hoax. It is very real. It is also very much been blown out proportion. And with the exception of last December and January, none of the measures the governments have taken were worth the risks. None of the measures taken were accurately assessed for the amount of economic, educational, and psychological blowback that would result from harsh stay at home, mask wearing, and social distancing measures.

Lockdowns will be far more devastating in the long run than anything this virus could ever dream of doing.

I dunno, man, when you look at India and Brazil and you look at what was happening in our hospitals during the first wave, it's really horrific.

It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation and it's probably true that we could have taken a more regional approach than we did, but to say it would have been fine to just go about like normal is beyond a stretch.

You seem to be locked in this thing where your experience with Covid is the extent of it. It's not like that. We are a country with a lot of healthcare problems and we would have totally collapsed the system in our big cities if we just ignored the problem.

 

[Rentahamster]

Pray tell, what new information brought about the change?

It's in the article.

Wear masks in public says WHO, in update of COVID-19 advice

The World Health Organization (WHO) updated its guidance on Friday to recommend that governments ask everyone to wear fabric face masks in public areas where there is a risk of transmission of COVID-19 to help reduce the spread of the pandemic disease.

www.reuters.com

The World Health Organization (WHO) updated its guidance on Friday to recommend that governments ask everyone to wear fabric face masks in public areas where there is a risk of transmission of COVID-19 to help reduce the spread of the pandemic disease.

In its new guidance, prompted by evidence from studies conducted in recent weeks, the WHO stressed that face masks were only one of a range of tools that can reduce the risk of viral transmission, and should not give a false sense of protection.

“Masks on their own will not protect you from COVID-19,” the WHO’s director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters at a briefing.


The WHO’s technical lead expert on COVID-19, Maria Van Kerkhove, said in a Reuters interview: “We are advising governments to encourage that the general public wear a mask. And we specify a fabric mask - that is, a non-medical mask.

“We have new research findings,” she added. “We have evidence now that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”

While some countries and U.S. states have recommended or mandated the wearing of face coverings in public, the WHO had previously said there was not enough evidence for or against the use of masks for healthy people in the wider community. It had always recommended that medical masks be worn by people who are sick and by those caring for them.

Like most changes, it was brought about by new information.

This wasn't just some random comment from a nobody, it was from Dr. Michael Ryan, a veteran epidemiologist of many WHO outbreak response teams for all sorts of diseases including SARS. A high ranking member of the World Health Organization with extensive knowledge of respiratory diseases and how best to respond to them. The WHO likely had the best access to any and all existing data about masks and respiratory diseases. That data informed their recommendations against masks for the wider public, especially due to concerns of them not being fitted properly or not being used properly.

So what? They can't change their mind as they reassess due to new information?

So what changed between the end of March 2020 and the mass mandates a few short months later specifically in regards to COVID-19? Some significant new information must have come in for them to start recommending that everyone wear whatever face covering they could obtain (even by recycling bandanas and t-shirts or making simple cloth masks at home), knowing that the concerns about poor fitting or improper use (reusing the same mask over and over again) absolutely did not go away.

They reassessed based on new information. Why is that such a sticking point for you? Things change, and as the pandemic worsened they realized that the cons of mask wearing in the general public didn't outweigh the pros anymore.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It's in the article.

Wear masks in public says WHO, in update of COVID-19 advice

The World Health Organization (WHO) updated its guidance on Friday to recommend that governments ask everyone to wear fabric face masks in public areas where there is a risk of transmission of COVID-19 to help reduce the spread of the pandemic disease.

www.reuters.com

Like most changes, it was brought about by new information.


So what? They can't change their mind as they reassess due to new information?


They reassessed based on new information. Why is that such a sticking point for you? Things change, and as the pandemic worsened they realized that the cons of mask wearing in the general public didn't outweigh the pros anymore.

What was the new information that led to these statements?

"We have evidence now that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”
“We are advising governments to encourage that the general public wear a mask. And we specify a fabric mask - that is, a non-medical mask."

What rigorous and conclusive science led to them doing a 180 on their recommendations and casting their previous concerns about improper use and ill fitting masks to the wind? Furthermore, what exactly constitutes "done properly?"

 

[Rentahamster]

What was the new information that led to these statements?

"We have evidence now that if this is done properly it can provide a barrier ... for potentially infectious droplets.”
“We are advising governments to encourage that the general public wear a mask. And we specify a fabric mask - that is, a non-medical mask."

What rigorous and conclusive science led to them doing a 180 on their recommendations and casting their previous concerns about improper use and ill fitting masks to the wind? Furthermore, what exactly constitutes "done properly?"

Unless they elaborated on what specific studies they were basing this on, I don't know.

Why are you so concerned about the WHO changing their mind and revising their guidelines?

 

[Raven117]

Just because some aspects are susceptible to groupthink doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's why you need to drill down at the individual studies and look for yourself if you think their methods make sense.

Yes, these experiments are being run by humans, who are subject to their own biases. You know who else is a human? You. By your logic I should discount everything you say too because you might be biased or be pushing an agenda on account of your humanness.

Of course you should. Same as I am with you. I agree that we should in fact seek the facts and truth. I don't think in this climate we are going to get it...not yet anyway. Overall, I do agree with you.

You appear to be locked in a very narrow world view.
I wear a mask and got vaccinated because I want things to get back to normal. Anywhere that says that you don't have to wear a mask, I don't. I don't really care that much if masks are effective (I think they help a little) - I do care that they facillitated businesses being able to operate during the pandemic.

Not at all. I too wore a mask when I was asked to and got vaccinated to help things get back to normal.

My point was it was theater for some of those businesses. But there is a sad assumption in your statement, you just assumed it was just fine for the government to dictate what could open and what couldn't and we should all be grateful that they threw businesses a bone and allowed some to open with masks. You just accepted that in your assumptions. Like the one poster above was talking about, the measures that were taken did not fit the actual danger.

Hopefully, by the time of our next global pandemic, we will have an effective strategy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Of course you should. Same as I am with you. I agree that we should in fact seek the facts and truth. I don't think in this climate we are going to get it...not yet anyway. Overall, I do agree with you.

But do you see the differences in methodologies that we use? While we are both skeptical of potential biases and groupthink, I am pointing to specific data and pointing out why it is plausible and explaining the case for it. I am taking their findings and drawing a conclusion from it. Your approach, on the other hand is a blanket mistrust of the research and experts, which leads to overgeneralizations. You've already reached your conclusion and are working back from it, as well as mind reading the motives of anyone who disagrees with you as if the only reason they do so is because of some kind of political agenda. The world is not that black and white.

 

[Raven117]

But do you see the differences in methodologies that we use? While we are both skeptical of potential biases and groupthink, I am pointing to specific data and pointing out why it is plausible and explaining the case for it. I am taking their findings and drawing a conclusion from it. Your approach, on the other hand is a blanket mistrust of the research and experts, which leads to overgeneralizations. You've already reached your conclusion and are working back from it, as well as mind reading the motives of anyone who disagrees with you as if the only reason they do so is because of some kind of political agenda. The world is not that black and white.

I don't have a blatant mistrust of research and experts. Not at all. You are doing the best you can in parsing through this which is impressive (even in spite of me taking pot shots at you). I do think you are working from your conclusion as you haven't cited the other research that goes the other way, but thats fine. You are doing all the work right now anyway, so the burden is on me to provide those (which I haven't done, but are out there).

In any event, you are solid poster and look forward to seeing your other posts on things.