But the “reality” you want us to wake to seems to be nothing but your largely unsubstantiated opinion. More cites would be nice…but I suspect that those cites either don’t exist, or that they might be a bit embarrassing.
Here is the study. But I’m not concerned with your estimation of my knowledge. I’m quite confident in my own scientific grounding, education, and familiarity with the issues. What I am concerned about are the bases you use as the justification for your own opinions. I’m not trying to point you to any one study in particular, as I actually believe that such a practice is a big part of the problem we have these days, in terms of how the general public interacts with science.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301932220305498
Exactly. Cite with an appropriate summary, @SayTwo.
While your at it, can you tell me which part of evidence-based decision-making confuses you? Maybe if you read up on it like we asked, you wouldn’t be so confused. So, again, read the literature regarding masks. I can point you in the right direction if you don’t know where to start.
It seems, to me, like you spend a lot of time in this forum, and in this thread in particular, telling the other posters that we are proceeding from incorrect assumptions, we aren’t looking at the right data (or that we aren’t interpreting the data properly), and that, if we were to do so (as you believe you are), we’d come to what you feel is an obvious conclusion.
But, you often act coy about not only what that conclusion specifically is, but also as to how you got to the level of understanding you believe you have.
At any rate, I think you’re a smart person, and you’ve clearly invested a lot of time in this, but trying to have a discussion with you about it makes me feel like I’m shadow boxing. Sorry, but I’m done.
The article specifically states that masks work well as source control. In fact, here is the quote right above the figure on masks as source control, “Another importance of a mask is that it eliminates the momentum of expelled puff during sneezing, coughing, speaking, and breathing, and thus reduce the distance that the puff cloud would reach. Therefore, wearing a mask reduces the chance for transmission of infectious viruses.” The authors don’t discuss humidity in the mask (but it does address humidity outside) but an increase in humidity reduces the amount of small aerosols from forming. The authors also don’t describe the “cotton mask”. Is this mask a single layer? What is the thread count? Masks nowadays usually have three layers of cotton or cotton with other fabrics to add electrostatic filtering.
This study is a mathematical model of droplet transport and suggests that simple physical distancing is not enough to prevent transmission of airborne particles. This is already well-known. Masks were not the main focus. It does not remotely address transmission of active viral particles (in fact, it specifically mentions that it doesn’t). There are tons of studies out there, both in the laboratory and in the field that do address that.
Cherry-picking one article out of the wealth of studies out there demonstrates that you really are not keeping up with the literature as you say you do. Would you like me to point you to some articles?
Point me to the studies that demonstrate the threshold of viral load that results in infection, with the mechanisms for transmission. I’ll start there.
And I’m sure you’ll never finish-No thank you. Numerous cites have already been provided by one side, so I believe the request on the table is for you to provide yours.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not have any such studies to point you to. In fact, I don’t believe that they exist.
Edit: Though, here is one that seems to demonstrate, among other things, that replication occurred in ferrets such that lower doses of inhaled virus resulted in the same level of ultimate viral shedding as higher doses. Make of that what you will, with all the standard caveats. Ferrets and all, of course.
Then you really don’t have a reasoned argument to make at all, do you?
You seem to be having a hard time following this. My argument is that the virus is successfully spreading despite mask mandates and widespread mask use. What I am suggesting as a mechanism for that is that the mask use, despite being effective in limiting the transmission of droplets and aerosols, does not appear to eliminate it altogether.
And what I am saying about your suggestion is that, in the middle of an epidemic where people I know personally have gotten very sick and(in some tragic cases) died, you had better come up with damn good cites to back up your claim before I will even begin to take you seriously. You’ve taken “Perfect is the enemy of Good” to a dangerous level.
But what ‘damn good cites’ would those be? Half the scientific world, seemingly, is working on this. There are countless studies that have been done, countless more being done all the time, and still very, very little is definitively known. Why does Argentina, with intensive NPIs, cruise along for weeks if not months with seemingly pristine success, only to then be overwhelmed? Pick any other jurisdiction that is presently suffering a resurgence with no change to its NPIs, of which there is no shortage. We can’t explain why.
Unless maybe the explanation is that either those NPIs are unrealistic long-term solutions (as in, people can’t manage to keep complying fully over an indefinite time, if they ever could in the first place) or that they really don’t work at all, and what you are seeing is a biological phenomenon that on a large scale is relatively immune to human influence. We cannot rule that out.
So, I would respectfully suggest that the burden is instead on those who believe they have discovered a solution to prove that their solution works, and that its benefits warrant its costs.
When we disrupt an immensely complex system – so complex that we don’t even comprehend it in full, much less the effects our disruption will have on it – we do so at our own great peril. When you do that you’re going to get a hundred effects you never could have anticipated, and 99 of them are bad.
…we are in the middle of a global pandemic, where there have been millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of people dead. We can’t be reliant on anonymous random people on the internet to filter through hundreds of scientific texts and studies to decide for us whether or not masks are useful in a pandemic.
This is the sort of thing that governments are for. Its why governments look to scientific and medical advice. They do the filtering so we don’t have to rely on anonymous random people on the internet #34535. And while some of the recommendations and advice provided by the various governments of the world have been (validly) disputed, there are certain advice and recommendations that have almost universally been adopted. And one of those things is about the wearing of masks.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
https://www.health.gov.au/news/should-i-wear-a-face-mask-in-public-0
https://www.meti.go.jp/english/covid-19/mask.html
So I really think we are beyond the “anonymous random person on the internet googling scientific studies on masks” stage of this debate. Because this isn’t a debate. The scientific consensus appears to be overwhelming. Its one thing to go against the grain. Its another to go against the grain while taking a position that is potentially dangerous.
And with all due respect: I don’t think you understand the studies you are citing. I don’t think many of us here are equipped to really understand the studies you are citing in the correct context. It really isn’t fair to just dump a link to a scientific paper and expect everyone (including you) to just understand it.
I would respectfully suggest that the person who is rejecting the recommendations of most of the governments around the world be the person who bears the burden of proving those governments are wrong, that your alternative solution will work, and that it will warrant the cost.
Here’s the big thing you are missing. We haven’t disrupted the system. The pandemic has disrupted the system. We wouldn’t even be discussing the wearing of masks if we weren’t in the middle of a global pandemic. Wearing masks isn’t the disruption. Wearing masks is being used to mitigate the effect of the pandemic.
If we do nothing in response to the global pandemic you’re going to get a hundred effects we absolutely could have anticipated, and 99 of them are bad. Which is really the point of all of this. You are applying a version of chaos theory to this but you are understanding chaos theory all wrong.
I would disagree. It is our reaction individually and collectively to the pandemic that has disrupted the system. We could have all just gone about our business as though nothing were wrong and let the chips fall as they may. We could also have all (every single person in the world) just stayed entirely home for a month and wiped out the virus. Neither of these is a realistic or practical reaction, but we all make choices that fall somewhere on that spectrum and how we react is what affects the system, not the disease itself.
For example, it’s not sick people not going to plays disrupting the theatre industry, it’s healthy people not going, or government mandates prohibiting them.
Please don’t misunderstand me, these things were and are largely the right actions. But let’s not pretend we had no any agency in the matter.
…I disagree with your disagreement. You ignore the context of the post I was responding too. We reacted to the disruption in the system. The disruption was the pandemic. The disruption was people dying in such large numbers and hospitals being overwhelmed at the early stages of the pandemic that something had to be done. But the “things that had to be done” wasn’t what disrupted the system. That was the pandemic. Agency doesn’t play a part.
No. That’s not how it works. I’ll point you to several studies on masks. That’s how keeping up with the literature works.
That’s about as silly as claiming that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, but about states’ rights.
Not how what works? Not how viruses spread?
I am under the impression that hundreds of relevant studies, at least, have been published since this thing began or are now in preprint. Many of the ones I read take a half-hour or so to absorb, some more. What fraction of the literature have you read? Do you work in a related field?
I hear what you are saying about the virus itself being to blame in some respects, and I think it’s absolutely something more people should keep in mind, before they excoriate people for being infected or unwittingly infecting others, as though they acted criminally, with malicious intent. Similarly, I wish people were slower to blame governments or jurisdictions for case numbers, as though the virus were a product of their own negligence. It’s certainly an important perspective to keep in mind. We’ve been doing a lot of blaming the victim.
But at the same time, it is not fair to say that when the virus was discovered, all hands were then tied. As I’m sure you know, there has in fact been a broad range of responses, often even within the same jurisdiction. I would grant, as would I’m sure most reasonable people, that initially it seemed prudent to follow the precautionary principle. But those days are long gone. The beds we sleep in now are ones we make.
Agency absolutely plays a part. It’s not as if there is some objective, correct way to deal with the disease. Different societies have taken different approaches. We won’t know what strategies will be shown to be the best until years from now. Any and all actions are not justified in the name of fighting COVID-19. Negative externalities should absolutely be considered when evaluating policy responses.