Being bothered that people who risk other people’s lives are called an unflattering name, versus being bothered that people risk other people’s lives. I’m real glad it doesn’t confuse me.
I know. It’s like a two-year old’s response. “Oh, they’re looking down on me. I’m going to push back harder. Don’t tell me I can’t rub my shit on the walls!”
Every time I go outside, I wear my mask.
I don’t know if it really does anything. I read too many varying medical opinions earlier in the pandemic to bother. I haven’t read any of the links in this thread about that because I don’t want to expend any mental energy on the topic at all.
I wear the mask anyway because:
- It doesn’t hurt.
- It makes people more comfortable (except for the idiots, of course)
- If I get the virus without knowing, it could save someone’s life. It’s a small price to pay. I ordered masks from China because they were no longer available here. Supposedly they are high quality but I don’t know.
Resist harder than screaming, pulling down racks of stuff, purposely coughing into a baby’s face?
Have you, personally, seen people pull down racks of stuff or purposefully cough into a baby’s face? Or are these things you’re outraged about because you’ve seen it on the news or the Internet? The average non-mask-wearer is not doing these things; they are extreme examples that have gotten a lot of publicity because stirring up outrage is a good way to get an audience. Undoubtedly, the extremists are not persuadable; but that doesn’t mean nobody is persuadable.
I haven’t had any go to that extremes, but I have lost a few clients who refused to either wear a mask or take curbside service.
Saw a bit of an argument outside Lowe’s entrance yesterday between some people not wearing masks and an employee. Don’t know how that turned out.
It suddenly changed? Hmmm…
" results caution against the use of cloth masks "
" Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection"
You know that cloth masks were not what you pointed at in the study you pointed first?
And yes, the change is because of something called the march of time and progress. I already have seen reports about cloth masks being less effective than the disposable ones that are being used more nowadays.
And finally, it is noticeable that you did not bother to check the new studies that look at not only cloth masks.
Bolding mine
From your cite: “In this case, the physical barrier provided by a cloth mask may afford some protection, but likely much less than a surgical mask or a respirator."”
Note that were talking about masking to protect OTHERS, not yourself.
If a mask makes the wearer MORE LIKELY to get infected then that is a problem.
But yes the new spin is that although masks offer no protection to the wearer they do offer protection to others. Scroll up and you will see a study called “Unmasking the Surgeons” showing that there’s no evidence that surgical masks offer protection to “patient or surgeon from infectious contamination”
Don’t believe any studies published in 2020:
"The studies, published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, were retracted shortly after publication, following an outcry from researchers who saw obvious flaws.
The hasty retractions, on the same day this month, have alarmed scientists worldwide who fear that the rush for research on the coronavirus has overwhelmed the peer review process and opened the door to fraud, threatening the credibility of respected medical journals just when they are needed most."
You realize you’re in the wrong thread. You’re basically threadshitting. Find or start a thread discussing whether or not to believe in the likelihood of face masks being effective in stopping the spread of germs.
We did already, you still miss timelines and that you are trying to ignore the latest research that is not just about cloth masks and you clearly switched from early doubts about surgical masks to cloth masks. They are not the same.
I’m not sure I understand. If surgical masks don’t protect others then why would we expect cloth masks to be any better?
However I did review that article and I see very vague conclusions:
“With masks, the evidence still isn’t totally definitive”
“mask-wearing could be effective”
“could be beneficial”
“may have been averted”
“cautioned that this was merely an approximation”
“could mitigate transmission”
“anecdotal evidence… mask-wearing ….didn’t seem to cause a significant spike in infections”
“studies aren’t perfect…more prone to errors and corrections over time. Many aren’t peer-reviewed”
"can’t fully isolate the effect of masks versus other widely adopted actions"
“needs to be further study on how they may enable reckless behaviors”
“deeply flawed studies…. [study] in PNAS that backed the use of masks has come under fire for allegedly shoddy methods.”
“evidence isn’t definitive…better to be safe than sorry”
@agzem, if you knew you had the virus, and you had to be exposed to somebody vulnerable that you cared about, would you wear a mask or would you breathe/cough on them?
Please, as if the study on “Unmasking the surgeons” does not end with this caveat in their conclusion:
It is important not to construe an absence of evidence for effectiveness with evidence for the absence of effectiveness. While there is a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of facemasks, there is similarly a lack of evidence supporting their ineffectiveness. With the information currently available, it would be imprudent to recommend the removal of facemasks from surgery.
And well, more information is available, others looked at that “Unmasking” paper and did report that:
Question 1: Can infected individuals reduce the risk of spreading the virus to others by wearing facemasks?
The answer to this is unambiguous. By design, a facemask with sufficiently high filtering efficiency can act as a passive barrier to stop infected individuals from spreading pathogens through droplets or aerosol from talking, coughing or sneezing, and they can reduce fomite transmission by reducing the chance of people spreading their body fluids after touching their nose or mouth. If worn properly, facemasks are likely to be superior to active practices such as covering up the nose or mouth when sneezing or coughing, which could contaminate individual’s hands or clothing and increase the risk of fomite transmission. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19, as emerging evidence suggests that transmission by asymptomatic or afebrile patients may play an important role in spreading the disease.[12–14]
Question 2: Can uninfected people reduce the risk of infection by wearing facemasks?
This is at the centre of the controversy. In this scenario, a facemask needs to block pathogens from external sources (e.g. infected individuals), which places significantly greater demand on the facemask’s particle filtering efficiency and on user compliance. Health care workers are at particularly high risk of infection due to the nature of their jobs. Preventing health care workers from contracting and spreading infection is one of the key priorities in health care settings. There has been largely consistent randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence in health care workers that wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators can reduce the risks of respiratory illnesses [including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)] by 40–60%, after accounting for key confounders such as other protective equipment or hygiene measures.[8],[11] However, uncertainty remains as to whether surgical masks are inferior to N95 respirators in preventing infection. A recent meta-analysis shows that, compared with surgical mask use, use of N95 respirators is associated with a >50% reduced risk of overall clinical respiratory illness but has no apparent superiority in preventing viral infection,[11] which is supported by a more recent large-scale RCT in an outpatient setting.[8] Despite the potential superiority of N95 respirators over surgical masks, the evidence in health care workers defies a common claim that surgical masks are ineffective for prevention because some coronaviruses (e.g. SARS-CoV-2) may be airborne in specific scenarios (e.g. during aerosol generating procedures) and/or can infect people through the mucous membranes of the eyes.
Trial evidence in the general population is, however, more limited, because it is practically challenging to carry out and there is high risk of non-compliance and cross-contamination.[15–17] Nonetheless, several case-control studies conducted in the general population in Hong Kong and Beijing during the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak found that frequent use of facemasks (predominantly surgical masks in both studies) in public spaces was associated with a >60% lower odds of contracting SARS compared with infrequent use, after accounting for key confounders.[18],[19] Although the effectiveness could be overestimated in observational studies (as seen in studies among health care workers[11]) the lack of conclusive evidence does not substantiate claims that surgical masks are ineffective for the public, but calls for further research, particularly on the reason behind the failure of transferring the effectiveness observed in health care workers to the general population, and the strategies needed to boost the effectiveness. For example, non-compliance, such as incomplete coverage of the mouth and nose or frequent removal and re-use of the same facemask in public spaces, is frequently reported as a major challenge in previous studies; but these could be addressed through enhancing public health education.[15],[16]
One more thing, this bit you quoted is cut in a way that can confuse people, the article pointed at that and other studies that had issues to emphasize that the other studies they cite are more robust.
The studies also emphasize that masks don’t fully replace the need for other precautions against Covid-19. So even with a mask, everyone should continue to wash their hands, keep 6 feet from others, and avoid large gatherings, particularly indoors. While masks appear to be a net good, researchers also caution that there needs to be further study on how they may enable reckless behaviors by making people feel invincible or less vulnerable.
There have also been some deeply flawed studies. One study in Annals of Internal Medicine with findings that went against masks was retracted, and another in PNAS that backed the use of masks has come under fire for allegedly shoddy methods.
Point was that on the whole, more studies that support the use of masks stand, while on the side of discouraging the use of masks the evidence is less good or wrong.
It doesn’t work because people find a way around it. Arkansas did just that–made a mask law. The result is a bunch of police organizations saying, in various different ways, that they will not enforce the law. It is stores saying they won’t violate medical privacy to make sure you have a right to not wear a mask.
It’s why I’m genuinely considering changing my long held stance that I shouldn’t carry a gun. Maybe I can’t get them to wear a mask, but open carry does seem to keep people at a respectable distance.
Me? No, the worst I’ve seen personally was an asshole who wore it over his nose, but not his mouth, at the Home Depot. I politely said, I think your mask slipped down and he got argumentative about, “hey, it just says I have to wear a mask, right?”, so I I left him alone. He was the only person in the HD not wearing his mask right, because I live in northern NJ and I guess we are just better people here.
I also haven’t seen cops beat up on minorities in person either, but I still think that’s a problem. Do I have to personally witness something for it to be a problem?
In NJ, mask usage is very high. People don’t complain about it, from I’ve seen, and you’ll often find everyone in a store wearing it.
I’m not sure why you’re telling me about whether shaming people works to get them to do something. I’m just an idiot on a message board. Fauci isn’t shaming people, more like pleading with people. None of the messaging I’ve seen has been about shaming people. That won’t stop me from calling them uncaring jerks, though.
I’m not sure why you’re telling me about whether shaming people works to get them to do something. I’m just an idiot on a message board.
I didn’t set out to tell you, personally, anything about shaming people. I posted a link to a Twitter thread and an article from an epidemiologist that offered some insight into the OP’s question, namely, what sort of public health messaging might best persuade the reluctant to wear masks. You were the one who decided to reply with a pro-shaming argument. I’m not trying to pick on you as a person; I’m simply responding to what you said in your earlier posts.
(Also, I doubt people in northern NJ are better than people elsewhere. Here in deep-red MS, I’ve watched mask-wearing at my local Kroger go from very rare in March, to about 70% in early May, back down to around 50%, and lately up to nearly universal, all without any particular drama. In most places, most people are open to changing their behavior, although they do need reasons to do so, and they don’t always do it overnight. The people throwing tantrums on the news made the national news because they are exceptional.)