Avoid Florida like the plague:
You realize it’s not binary. “Protection” is a matter of degree.
I am really committed to masks. I have believed they are the key to keeping this under control from the start, and the evidence keeps piling up to support that. And of COURSE I always wear a mask when I go out. I usually wear a reusable N90 mask, because I don’t trust myself to keep a disposable N95 positioned properly. (And disposable masks get expensive quickly.)
But you know what, if I go to a shop and see people wandering around without masks, I don’t go back to that shop. Because my mask won’t provide perfect protection, and I am ALSO relying on the rest of you to respect and protect me.
And… I’m really confused where you are getting your information if you think “I’ve always thought it was believed to be the other way round.” Because no medical professional has ever said that, that I can remember. And I’ve read a lot of medical papers on the subject.
Hey – you know why we have “surgical masks”? It’s not so surgeons don’t get sick when they cut out your cancer. It’s so they don’t infect you when they cut open your skin. Protecting other people from what you exhale is pretty much why they exist.
Well, this will test @SayTwo’s faith in the levelheaded smarts of the Average Jane/Joe as stated upthread:
Bravo!
This article also mentions a couple theories on why some young, healthy people die from covid, one that you linked. I’m not sure if this other one is the same as the other you linked.
This is the other study mentioned.
33,556,424 total cases
1,006,458 dead
24,881,607 recovered
In the US:
7,361,611 total cases
209,808 dead
4,609,636 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
And I suppose there’s also a reason they don’t wear scarves or t-shirts. But yes, I do realize that it’s a matter of degree.
The AP has a nifty animation showing the spread of coronavirus around the globe:
And for anyone who needs a recap on everything, here’s the article that accompanied the graphic:
You think the science is soft (though I note that you don’t cite any specific studies and explain what you think is wrong with them), so you’re going to go with your “hunch”?
What on earth could possibly be softer than one person’s hunch?
In order to be surprised at the idea that available masks protect others more than the wearer, you’ve have to have read nothing whatsoever on this subject over the past several months.
So how can you possibly say that the science is “soft”, since you haven’t been reading any of it?
Here’s a study looking at the effectiveness of masks in preventing infection in the wearer:
How could anyone possibly believe that masks work in one direction but not the other? What do you think the first ‘P’ stands for in PPE?
One reason is that the poor material being used in improvised masks only provide an essentially trivial level of personal protection. An N95 mask provides filtration in the 95-100% range, while a cloth mask may only be 40%. That low filtration might be okay when you want to minimize dust or pollen, but it’s almost worthless when trying to protect yourself from a potentially deadly airborne microbe. Sure, 40% is better than nothing, but it will still allow a significant amount of virus to be inhaled. We need to continue the message that inefficient masks provide little personal protection because it’s important for people to realize that something like a bandanna is not making them invulnerable to the virus. But messaging should also be that better masks provide better protection and that people should use masks which provide the maximum filtration possible.
Here’s some guidance from the FDA:
N95 respirators and surgical masks are examples of personal protective equipment that are used to protect the wearer from airborne particles and from liquid contaminating the face.
A surgical mask is a loose-fitting, disposable device that creates a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and potential contaminants in the immediate environment.
Surgical masks are made in different thicknesses and with different ability to protect you from contact with liquids.These properties may also affect how easily you can breathe through the face mask and how well the surgical mask protects you.
If worn properly, a surgical mask is meant to help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter that may contain germs (viruses and bacteria), keeping it from reaching your mouth and nose. Surgical masks may also help reduce exposure of your saliva and respiratory secretions to others.
Yes, of course, that last bit in italics address the other direction as well. As does this whole page about it:
But one last bit from the FDA guidance:
While a surgical mask may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets, a face mask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures. Surgical masks also do not provide complete protection from germs and other contaminants because of the loose fit between the surface of the mask and your face.
It’s that last part, and all the other language on those sites giving disclaimers that the data is not firm (hence, it is soft) about all this, given not only the inherent limitations described above (and hopefully apparent to most) but also the difficulty in designing studies that would give clear and firm evidence of the efficacy of masks worn by humans (not mice or the like) in preventing infection by this particular (live) virus.
@SayTwo remind me again why we’re still beating this to death? I’ve lost track…
An interesting discovery related to the mask discussion. This doesn’t seem surprising to me since eyes are a very vulnerable entry point for many germs. [People who wear eyeglasses FIVE TIMES less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than general public | Daily Mail Online]
The data that surgical masks protect the people surgeons are operating on isn’t soft at all. It’s very very well established.
You should wear a mask when you go out to be respectful of your friends and neighbors, and to protect them in case you are presymptomatic. That’s the hard science. That a cloth mask might also protect you is the softer part.
But that’s not at all what we are talking about here. Again, there are no studies – at least not that I am aware of – that firmly demonstrate the efficacy of the kinds of masks people are wearing in preventing infection in humans by this particular virus. And there may well never be, given that it’s not the kind of thing you can readily run a randomized control trial on.
Yes, you should follow all the guidance and laws and be respectful of others. But let’s not kid ourselves that the only people getting infected are those who found themselves in the same room as someone without a mask on. If anything, there are plenty enough places where there doesn’t seem to be much correlation at all, if even any, between mask enforcement/compliance and rate of spread.
And again, if it protects them then it also protects you. Which was the crux of the discussion to begin with, which was the claim that those who believe mask use will prevent the spread of the virus are fully capable of wearing their own, and thus protecting themselves.
You think that science should be a popularity contest? That’s not how science works. But if it was, I would vote for a cure for cancer and for ponies growing on trees.
And I’m trying to parse that last sentence… so you are saying you give the unwashed zero credit? Why? They’re not idiots.
Finally, a self-fertilizing tree.
No, he’s saying I give the unwashed zero credit (i.e., I think they’re stooopid, which I do), but he DOESN’T give them zero credit (i.e., he thinks they should be allowed to decide whether or not to wear masks for whatever reasons and he trusts that they will make the right decisions for the good of the community. To which I say: HA!).
Here’s a sobering discussion of how the pandemic ends, based on interviews with 11 infectious disease experts.
Some highlights: a vaccine is not the end of it. The general consensus is at least a few years to get back to a “normal” of no masks and large crowds.
They agree there’s a lot of fog left in the Covid-19 crystal ball, but most accept several likelihoods: At least one effective vaccine—hopefully several—will be approved in the U.S. by early next year. Producing and distributing a vaccine will take months, with the average American not receiving their dose (or doses) until at least mid- or late 2021. And while widespread inoculation will play a large role in bringing life back to normal, getting the shot will not be your cue to take off your mask and run free into a crowded bar.
The government is doing a terrible job of setting expectations for what a vaccine means:
But it won’t enable people to attend the theater or cozy up in their favorite dive bar right away. “I’m not sure people get that,” says Offit. “What worries me in this is that people would think, ‘Great. I’ve got the vaccine. I’m good. I can engage in high risk activity.’ And that would put us right back to where we were.”
Producing and administering the vaccine has a lot of challenges.
Pfizer’s vaccine, for example, needs to be stored at minus 70 degrees Celsius. “No doctor’s office has negative 70.”
…
Two-thirds of Americans say they won’t get the vaccine when it’s first available—and a quarter say they’ll never get it. Many scientists fear that so many people are going to refuse to get both doses of a vaccine out of distrust or fear or just plain forgetfulness that America won’t reach a high level of protection, much less herd immunity.
…
Oxfam recently warned that 61 percent of the global population will not have a vaccine until at least 2022. Rich countries are not making equitable access easy: According to Oxfam, wealthy countries representing 13 percent of the world’s population have already reserved over half the supply of leading vaccine candidates.