My neighbor seems to despise me

The Quarantine Zone
41

The “studies” which say that masks don’t help are taking rigid view of the situation. If one person gets sick while wearing a mask, they say masks don’t work. But the problem with studies like that is that they assume every mask is the same regardless of what it is made of and they all provide the same level of protection regardless of how properly the person is wearing it. They don’t consider that different mask materials offer different levels of protection. They don’t consider that if a mask has wide gaps on the edges it will provide less protection. They also don’t consider that masks will lower transmission within a population. Just because masks don’t bring transmission down to zero doesn’t mean they don’t work. If transmission goes from 50% to 25% when masks are introduced, then masks drop the transmission by half even though some people still got it. And even if you get infected, masks will lessen the initial viral load which tends to lessen the severity of the infection. The studies that say masks don’t work are defining “don’t work” as meaning “bringing the transmission rate to zero”.

This kind of fallacy would be like saying all body armor doesn’t work because one person died while wearing body armor. There are different kinds of body armor and different kinds of projectiles, and different combinations will provide different levels protection. And even if the armor fails, it will have mitigated the projectile to some degree which may lessen the injuries the person receives. But there is no body armor which is 100% perfect and someone may die regardless of what body armor they are wearing.

42

Are you talking about the Danish mask study? It had 4800+ complete the controlled experiment, which evidently was not unethical because there was no mask mandate in the country at the time.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

And at least one major one that had to be retracted because the situation later changed and reversed the outcome, correct?

43

Not that I am aware of. Cite?
Did you read the article I pointed to?

44

This one:

Withdrawal The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because there are increased rates of SARS- CoV-2 cases in the areas that we originally analyzed in this study. New analyses in the context of the third surge in the United States are therefore needed and will be undertaken directly in conjunction with the creators of the publicly-available databases on cases, hospitalizations, testing rates. Etc.

I think I’ve read that article, yes, but I’ll double check.

45

I don’t know if this counts - it sure as heck isn’t a controlled study - but out of curiosity I looked at rates of Covid infection in Congress, by political party. R and D are of course proxies for mask-wearing conscientiousness. (Not perfect, I know.)

This is data from a few days ago, but here’s what I found:

SENATE (100 members, 52% R and 46% D)
80 (80%) of positive tests for Covid were Republicans
20 (20%) were Democrats

HOUSE (435 members, 54% D and 45% R)
30 (70%) of positive tests for Covid were Republicans
13 (30%) of positive tests for Covid were Democrats

I find that rather suggestive, but of course it’s barely a step above anecdotal.

46

The text of the withdrawal doesn’t say the conclusion is wrong, it just says they want to use the additional data from the third wave, for what it’s worth.

Here’s a study from 2015 that hasn’t been withdrawn showing that surgical masks were better at reducing the risk of catching respiratory disease than cloth masks were. It does not say what sort of cloth masks were used. And yes, the author’s conclusion is “don’t use cloth masks”, but that was in the context of using cheap cloth masks instead of surgical masks, not instead of an uncovered face, which they didn’t study. (99% of the “control” arm wore some kind of mask – some surgical, some fabric, some a mix from day to day.)

The authors responded in light of the covid pandemic here:

There are other responses to it here:

47

Oh, make no mistake that the characteristics of the data changed significantly when the time horizon was extended, invalidating the original conclusions if there is any presumption at all that the findings were expected to hold. There’d have been no reason to withdraw the first study otherwise. And, of course the conclusion changed. They studied 1000+ counties during a time in which the majority of them had not yet had their first big wave.

See, that’s the thing with those early studies, or a lot of these water-cooler conversations. It’s not necessarily that the methodology is wrong, but more that we’re grasping at straws when it comes to causation.

48

Well, here’s mine.

Exactly. Dismissing acting as if we’re all in this together and that we’ll do what we can to alleviate and ultimately end this situation as “virtue signalling” is, well, childish at best.

Fear of catching a disease that has, to date, killed nearly 350,000 people in this country alone is “unreasonable?” Please. It’s the only rational response.

Also, somewhat off-topic, but I see this a lot. Inserting “I choose to” into a statement about some behavior that is frowned upon does not render you beyond criticism. If you “choose” to go maskless and come within six feet of others, even momentarily, that is not a “choice” for which I have any respect. Nor is a person who “chooses” to do that someone I respect, or would have in my home, or hire, or interact with in any way. I think ostracism is the best, and safest, response.

I do. And I bicycle a lot these days, since I won’t get on the subway (I’m in NYC) or on a bus unless absolutely necessary. Funny – I’ve had the bike I currently ride for (I think) more than six years. All of a sudden I’m wearing out parts and tires, more in the past nine months than in the past six years.

The bike paths here (where there are bike paths) aren’t wide enough so that riders can stay six feet away from each other. It’s just not possible a lot of the time.

I will switch from my usual KN95 mask to a surgical mask because it’s easier to breathe through the surgical mask once my heart rate and breathing get faster.

Exactly. Same here. On some of the narrow streets of my Brooklyn neighborhood, people of normal size actually have to step aside to let each other pass.

And yet some people won’t wear masks when they’re walking around.

The worst group are runners. My informal counting shows me that a slim majority of runners just won’t wear masks at all, at least when running. So they’re pounding up and down these narrow sidewalks, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard.

Some of them, the younger, bigger finance bro types (of which there are plenty around here) react aggressively and threateningly to any suggestion that they wear a mask.

I’m sick of them. Yes, I sneer at them.

49

You are making assumptions. Maybe the new results look much stronger, and they want to be able to publish without starting from scratch. Neither of us know.

There are three reasons to wear a mask when outdoors:

  1. it might protect you from catching covid/reduce the severity
  2. it might protect others from catching covid from you
  3. it is courteous to others

The data on (1) is not very solid, I grant. The data on (2) is quite strong, and (3) is incontrovertible.

Find some comfortable masks and wear them every time you are in public.

50

No, I’m not, because I read the original paper and I am also aware of what trajectories the virus took across the United States in the months since the study.

51

I walk anywhere between 4-7 miles daily through my neighborhood and I don’t wear a mask. I don’t see other walkers all that often but when I do I have yet to see one wearing a mask either. If we’re headed right for one another one of us simply steps out onto the street and we rarely pass one another any closer than 8-10 feet. If foot traffic was so heavy that social distancing was a problem I would happily wear my mask when I walk. But it isn’t a problem so a mask seems unnecessary.

52

The thing about being outside is that the virus is greatly diluted in the air, but it is not neutralized. Being outside with other people is just safer, but it’s not 100% safe. The more virus you are exposed to, the more likely you are to get infected, but there is no bottom limit to the number of viral particles you need to get infected. It is theoretically possible to be infected by a single viral particle, although that’s very, very unlikely. If a contagious person is walking 20 feet away, it is possible for a few viral particles to drift over to you, get breathed in, slip past the mucus and other defensive measures in your respiratory system, and land on a susceptible cell and infect you. It’s very unlikely, but it can happen. But with the chances so low, it often doesn’t make a practical difference if you wear a mask outside or not if you’re not in close contact with other people, but you should never feel like you’re 100% safe.

53

I’m not seeing the title of the thread as a debate about masks. It doesn’t matter what percentage of efficacy it provides. I think most people reading the op’s scenario believe the neighbor would prefer a mask be worn around other people.

The mask isn’t going to hurt the op and offers an opportunity to improve relations with a neighbor. I’m not seeing a downside to wearing it.

54

I wasn’t the person who wrote that “the whole “6 foot thing” turns out to be wrong”. I’ve pointed out that it is the same as the basis for using masks.

You may imagine that I’ve written something different, and keep that opinion to yourself. It’s hardly fair to make up something, and then attribute it to me. I’m not just “willing to make myself aware of which posters make up stuff, for future reference”: I’m willing to go on correcting you as long as you go on making up stuff about me.

55

You could be even safer, if you’d just wear a mask.

Do I think you’re acting irresponsibly based on what you’ve described? No, I don’t. So far, the evidence suggests there’s little chance of exposure outside with incidental contact.

But I’m sorry, you have to be aware of how you can be perceived, and in his mind, he understandably reaches the conclusion that you’re an anti-mask jackass. Keep in mind: we’re talking about a deadly disease, one that could kill him, one that could kill someone who loves. This is not something to mess around with here, and he looks at you and perceives you as a mortal threat to the general public – understandable.

Wear a mask unless you have a valid reason not to. If nothing else, you’ll be offering psychological reassurance to your neighbors that you’re a good, trustworthy citizen. If you can’t understand how he feels, then I have absolutely no sympathy for you. None whatsoever. I’d be sneering at you, too.

56

As others have already said, I carry one of my lighter masks on my walks. I never get close enough to anyone to have to wear it. I can simply cross the street. However, you never know, right?

57

For all we or the OP know, it already has.

[ETA: I presume that’s meant to read ‘could kill someone who he (the neighbor) loves’.]

58

yeah, meant to edit that, too <embarrassed emoji, lol>

To clarify, I wasn’t attacking the OP; it seems like he/she cares about doing the basic minimum to protect public health and is aware of how he could be perceived on some level, but having said that, I think there’s something to be said for offering others some reassurance.

I don’t see a reason to not wear a mask when out in public unless you’re completely isolated from others.

59

I didn’t even see it the first time through; not till I went to double-check my own post.

60

Lacking anyone else to sneer at, you invent an imaginary enemy.

But even if it was someone else, your imaginary enemy who doesn’t wear a mask, it was still an obvious contradiction that was pointed out, and you do yourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.