Face Masks Offer More Protection from Coronavirus Than Many Think (latimes.com) 356
Face masks "offer much more protection against coronavirus than many think," reports the Los Angeles Times. [Alternate version here ....]
There's a common refrain that masks don't protect you; they protect other people from your own germs, which is especially important to keep unknowingly infected people from spreading the coronavirus. But now, there's mounting evidence that masks also protect you.
If you're unlucky enough to encounter an infectious person, wearing any kind of face covering will reduce the amount of virus that your body will take in. As it turns out, that's pretty important. Breathing in a small amount of virus may lead to no disease or far more mild infection. But inhaling a huge volume of virus particles can result in serious disease or death. That's the argument Dr. Monica Gandhi, UC San Francisco professor of medicine and medical director of the HIV Clinic at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, is making about why — if you do become infected with the virus — masking can still protect you from more severe disease...
She cited an outbreak at a seafood plant in Oregon where employees were given masks, and 95% of those who were infected were asymptomatic.... The protective effects are also seen in countries where masks are universally accepted for years, such as Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea and Singapore. "They have all seen cases as they opened ... but not deaths," Gandhi said.
"The emerging scientific data is clear: wearing a mask doesn't only protect others, it also significantly reduces your own risk of getting Coronavirus," one U.S. governor recently pointed out.
"So if you're a selfish bastard and wearing a mask to protect others isn't enough of a reason to do so, then maybe protecting yourself is?"
If you're unlucky enough to encounter an infectious person, wearing any kind of face covering will reduce the amount of virus that your body will take in. As it turns out, that's pretty important. Breathing in a small amount of virus may lead to no disease or far more mild infection. But inhaling a huge volume of virus particles can result in serious disease or death. That's the argument Dr. Monica Gandhi, UC San Francisco professor of medicine and medical director of the HIV Clinic at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, is making about why — if you do become infected with the virus — masking can still protect you from more severe disease...
She cited an outbreak at a seafood plant in Oregon where employees were given masks, and 95% of those who were infected were asymptomatic.... The protective effects are also seen in countries where masks are universally accepted for years, such as Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea and Singapore. "They have all seen cases as they opened ... but not deaths," Gandhi said.
"The emerging scientific data is clear: wearing a mask doesn't only protect others, it also significantly reduces your own risk of getting Coronavirus," one U.S. governor recently pointed out.
"So if you're a selfish bastard and wearing a mask to protect others isn't enough of a reason to do so, then maybe protecting yourself is?"
Smaller amounts of virus don't overload. (Score:5, Informative)
So, if a mask only removes some of the virus, it can be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here, I think, is the scale at which this effect works. Like, if you look at the flu study [nih.gov] referenced in the article, they step up the dose in power of ten steps and still get meaningful results, because that's roughly on the order of what was needed to get a substantial change in either the number of people infected or showing symptoms. Your typical fabric mask is maybe on the order of a 20-50% reduction if I remember rightly, probably closer to 20% if the person wearing it is the uninfected on
20% reduction eradicates the virus (Score:5, Informative)
The key thing to understand about an infectious disease that the general media doesn't cover much is the basic reproduction rate, abbreviated R.
Suppose that for every hundred people who are infected today, they pass it along to 110 new people. The number of new cases would rise exponentially every couple of weeks: ...
100 cases
110 cases
121 cases
133 cases
That's called R 1.1
Conversely, consider if 100 people infected today pass it along to 90 people, and R of 0.9:
100 cases ...
90 cases
81cases
73
66
0 cases
Right now the R is pretty close to 1.0, which ia reflected by the fact that the rate of new cases isn't changing much. (Depending on location)
Keep that in mind, let's go back yo what you said:
> Your typical fabric mask is maybe on the order of a 20-50% reduction if I remember rightly, probably closer to 20% if the person wearing it is the uninfected one. That's not much good.
Just for fun let's use a number on the low side, only 25%.
What happens if we reduce the transmission rate by 25%.
If we start at 1.0 and reeuce that by 25% to 0.75, that means the case rate each round is 75% of what it was in the previous round:
100 new cases
75 new cases
56
42
32
24 cases
18 cases
A combination of measures that reduces the transmission rate by 20% or 30% or whatever is how you get R below 1.0 and thereby get case rates to about zero. That's how we can eridicate the virus - by reducing the transmission rate by 20% or 30%.
> probably closer to 20% if the person wearing it is the uninfected one.
One recent study found 65%, but let's go with 20%.
The key thing is that's 20% PER ROUND. If your high school wears a mask today, he's 20% less likely to catch it. Which means he's 20% less likely to pass it to the bank teller, multiplied by the bank teller is 20% less likely to catch it EVEN if the football coach has it, so the bank teller is 36% less likely to catch it. That means the teller is 36% less likely to be able to pass it to your brother. Since your brother is wearing a mask, he's 49% less likely to catch it, meaning less likely to pass it to you.
A 20%-50% reduction in the likelihood of getting the virus THIS WEEK leads to a 99% reduction in the risk of catching it a few months from now. Simply because the person you were going to catch it from never got it, because they were wearing a mask two weeks before you met them.
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically, he claimed that the study used a 10x factor in virions to get a meaningful change in infection rate, so a 1.25x factor (25% increase) should make little, if any, meaningful change in the infection rate.
I don't know if his numbers are right, just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
In just two sentences (Score:4, Insightful)
Having explained it, let me summarize the bottom line in two sentences:
If case rates keep rising 10% per month, it's almost guaranteed that you and your family will get covid.
If case rates drop 10% per month, you are your family probably won't get it.
How important is it for rates drop (even a little bit) rather than rise?
Re:Smaller amounts of virus don't overload. (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. I've heard 30%, but either way, that demonstrates pretty clearly why making everyone wear masks is so critical. The only way masks really help enough to matter is if the infected person is wearing the mask, and if you can't know that you're infected with any degree of certainty, then the only way to ensure that is to mandate mask wearing for everyone, with no exceptions.
Take a look at this analysis [nih.gov] of the 1918 flu. Basically, their conclusion was that exposure to a severe case made people more likely to get a severe case, largely because of higher levels of viral particle exposure.
That neatly explains why deaths tend to be heavier near the start of each wave. The more quickly you bring the replication numbers down, and the more you do to limit exposure to people who are shedding lots of virus particles, the fewer people will get severe symptoms. Individually, it may not matter much, but in aggregate, the difference between exposing 3 people to a large viral load and exposing 1.4 people to a medium or small viral load can really add up to a big difference in deaths, particularly given that those smaller viral loads are less likely to cause the next person to die, and so on.
That also explains why dense cities had far more deaths than less dense areas. Compare NYC to the SF Bay Area, for example. NYC has seen only 10% more cases than the Bay Area, but had more than four times as many deaths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wave your hands and point at unrelated research, or just put on the fucking mask, asshole?
Re: (Score:3)
According to that reasoning, an N95 mask would barely have any effect either since at 95% efficacy, it gives just over one order of magnitude reduction.
When the performance of respirator masks is discussed, it's usually about how well they can filter particles that are 300 nm in size, because those are the hardest ones to block (This is about the particle size of cigarette smoke, by the way.) But Covid-19 is thought to spread mostly by much larger droplets (> 5 micrometer), for which low-tech masks are s
Face masks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If face masks didn't work,
That was not the claim. The claim was that they offered little protection to the wearer.
every country would have a curve as large as the US.
That is false. Even if face masks didn't work, those countries making other meaningful responses to Covid like track and trace might still be doing better than the US. Here in the US we are doing half-assed mask wearing, half-assed shelter in place, etc etc. We are half-assing the entire response.
Re: (Score:3)
You cant really expect better when half of the American population are ASSES. Thats what happens when you dont allow parents to whoop their kids and teachers have to treat dumbos the same as smart kids. People grow up dumb and think their opinion matters. Dumb people exist everywhere but in other cultures the dumb folks know enough to listen to their intellectual betters but American culture of participation prizes makes idiots think their opinion matters instead of just listening to smarter folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American policy makers may have been saying that. Why don't Americans ever think that those people may not have their best interests at heart? Why do you keep believing them??
What's the alternative?
Re: Face masks (Score:2)
Re: Face masks (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, most recommendations are for mask AND social distancing.
Kindly stop making excuses and wear the damned mask. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
It was months ago (Score:5, Informative)
And you know what, we've proven them right. We are too stupid. We're about to reopen schools after watching multiple countries in MUCH better shape then us try it, fail, and close them back down.
Meanwhile a political party that constantly rails against the police state is ignoring this [kptv.com].
I don't mean to make this too political, but it is, so I can't help it. I bring up Oregon because it shows the level of cognitive dissonance and plain 'ole double think going on in America today.
Hell, a Study showed [youtu.be] people loved masks until they thought the "gubbermint" was telling them to do it because they're afraid of gov't conspiracies.
The study suggested not letting these people know that it was the gov't telling them to wear masks. Literally creating a government conspiracy because stupid people believe in government conspiracies...
I hate this time line.
Re: (Score:2)
and they were lying.
Fauci even admitted it to Congress.
So, months ago Masks were effective, but for the public there weren't.
Is it any wonder that people are skeptical when they say they are effective now?
Are they telling the truth this time?
That said, I wear a mask.
Re: Face masks (Score:5, Insightful)
But lest we forget the policy makers and media were saying just a few weeks ago that masks don't help.
And by a few weeks ago you mean at the beginning of March [marketwatch.com], almost 20 weeks ago. Further, the media wasn't saying anything. The media was reporting what they were being told.
I'm for social distancing and against manditory masks because they want to stuff people back together and say a mask will protect you when it wont.
Look, Yuri. Trying double-speak doesn't work around here. Quite clearly masks do work because every single country which has mandated masks has seen a precipitous plunge in new infections. The same goes for those states which mandated masks. New York can be used as the clearest example.
If masks didn't work to help prevent the spread of infections, surgeons wouldn't wear them during open heart surgery. Or any surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
But lest we forget the policy makers and media were saying just a few weeks ago that masks don't help
You're conflating elected officials with medical professionals, there was never any equivocating about the need to wear masks, or that it helps.
Don't be such a complete moron, this is easy enough for a child to understand. Doctors and lawyers do different jobs. See? Easy. Stop taking health advice from lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were advising against wearing masks. Unspoken was that they were referring to N95s, which were and are in short supply, and didn't want the public to use them so they'd be available to health care workers.
And of course, this is new. We're learning more about the virus all the time, so recommendations based on what was known a while ago may change based on newer knowledge.
Re:Face masks (Score:5, Informative)
You're spewing some BS that I don't want to argue with, but I'm particularly curious about your claim that the US tests more than most other countries (by far). Is that intended to mean that we test more than most other countries, or that we test more people than other countries? We're a first world nation, so of course the former is true as there are many nations that simply can't afford to get their people tested.. But the latter is laughable. The US barely tests anybody. Even in very dense hotspots like NYC, we had horrible rates of testing. Even leaving South Korea out of the equation, the way other nations is testing their populace makes the US look like a second world nation.
So, why would you say such a thing? Why would you say something that either, A. is meaningless, or B. is demonstrably false?
We test more because of 2 things (Score:3)
2. Just this moment we're testing more per capital than even Europe & South Korea because they've got their pandemic under control and we don't. So while they've been able to pull back on testing we're doing as much as the Orange One will allow.
Finally,
3. I
Re: We test more because of 2 things (Score:2)
Because countries like China have never lied about anything, ever.
No offense, but the fact that you even trust China and India to accurately report their infection numbers just exemplifies the lack of critical thought you have.
WMDs (Score:5, Funny)
Countries like US and UK have never lied about anything
Re:WMDs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
3. Ignore per capital testing numbers. What matters is the rate of positive tests. That's how you know our pandemic is out of control. It's over 30%.
Both are relevant. What we really need to know in addition to that percentage of tests are positive is whether the testing is of a representative sample. We need to be testing both people with and without symptoms, and enough of both groups to be relevant. Right now we're testing mostly people with obvious symptoms. We'd expect more of their tests to be positive than those of the background population. But is that expectation rational?
The dude is not spewing (Score:2)
His face mask is blocking the spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Face masks (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck are you talking about? The US has tested 50 million people (so far). 500k PER DAY. This is why I have given up on arguing with people. The stupidity has spread too far and wide. The data is available, but people choose what they want to believe.
You are doing precisely what you are bitching about. Seeing what you want to see while choosing to remain ignorant to information which contradicts your assumptions.
The positivity rate is what matters not the volume of tests as the provides inferences on prevalence within population not direct visible from direct testing alone. Positivity rates are not decreasing they are INCREASING. This indicates current testing rates are INSUFFICIENT.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/te... [jhu.edu]
US bad. Trump bad. US doesn't test. US doesn't wear masks. US has the highest per capita death rate of all countries. None of it is true, but we live in a post-fact era now, where the media has put out a narrative and people lap it up. Pretty sad.
The fucking sky is green with purple polka dots is also not a true statement. What is the fucking relevance of any of the political bullshit to anything in this goddamn thread?
Pretty sad, because with the Internet the data is easily available so you can verify the figures. Oh well, fuck it. Wear a mask. It won't make a difference, but if it makes everyone happy just do it.
You should have no trouble citing credible evidence supporting your assertion wearing a mask won't make a difference ... right? What is that? No? I didn't think so.
Re: Face masks (Score:3)
I challenge you to try that. If you have no symptoms, arenâ(TM)t part of a workforce that is high contact and high risk, and havenâ(TM)t been in recent contact with an already confirmed case, I seriously doubt theyâ(TM)ll give you a real test (not an antibody test) even if you offer to pay cash on the spot.
Thereâ(TM)s a supply chain concern for some test reagents, so the tests are being rationed.
Re:Face masks (Score:4, Insightful)
The US barely tests anybody.
You're probably so far into a partisan echo chamber that you don't even receive local news anymore.
I can go almost any for-profit clinic right now and get COVID tested for free, with no insurance. Antibody testing too, if you report having had symptoms.
The main problem is not a lack of testing, but rather a lack of timely test results. I ended up with an unexpected low-grade fever, sore throat, and cough late last week, and I'm still waiting for results more than a week later. The average latency here is 7 to 9 days.
Now in my case, I'm able to work remotely, get things delivered, and avoid interacting with anybody, but that's not always true for everyone everywhere. For people who can't do those things, the difference between a 48-hour turnaround and a 216-hour turnaround could be the difference between infecting a few people and infecting a few hundred people in the first generation alone.
A week-plus test backlog makes contact tracing absolutely impossible. First, most people don't even remember who they came into contact with or where they went nine days ago, nor do businesses know who else might have been in their stores so long ago. Second, after nine days, not only have all the people that you infected already shown symptoms, but statistically most people who got sick from them have already started showing symptoms. You're two full generations out by the time you get results.
The current state of testing in the United States can only be described as a colossal failure. It's an entirely predictable consequence of the just-in-time, cost-cutting society that we live in today. Instead of every hospital and clinic having their own in-house testing, everybody farms out the testing to third-party testing labs, which is fine when you don't have a sudden need for large testing volume, but when you get into a capacity crunch, suddenly there's no spare capacity to handle the surge, and you're screwed.
It has been pretty clear for a long time that the profit motive in medical care is harmful; this crisis just brought our medical system's existing problems into stark relief.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a lower per capita death rate than many countries.
Someone please call Webster to inform them that "many" has been redefined to mean 9.
1 San Marino 1,238
2 Belgium 845
3 Andorra 673
4 UK 667
5 Spain 608
6 Italy 580
7 Sweden 556
8 France 462
9 Chile 436
10 USA 430
(source [worldometers.info])
Re:Face masks (Score:4, Insightful)
People can't grasp complexities.
Right. That's why in Oregon, we have mandatory masks even outdoors in places like sidewalks where you can't distance to 6', and high compliance, a very low percent of our population is affected. But people in other places with low compliance have worse outbreaks and a much higher percent of the population affected.
That's not really all that complicated, to be honest. You're just too stupid to even try.
Re:Face masks (Score:5, Informative)
Total BS. Why is this "insightful"? The US has a lower per capita death rate than many countries. It also tests the most (by far). I am amazed at how ignorant people are. Truly truly scary, but you can't fight it at this point. Stupidity has spread too far and wide. People can't grasp complexities. They don't understand the differences between countries. The US is very large and mobile and interconnected. Other countries are not. Face masks make no difference, except to make people feel safer.
You have been moderated into oblivion, but I'm hoping you might read this reply since nobody else will ever see it. I'm spending my personal time to present fact in the hopes that maybe you can be communicated with.
Let's make a comparison between the US and Canada, for fun. Similar style of economy, similar types of cities (if numerically fewer of them), and similar "interconnectedness", much of which is - get this - with the United States!
America tests-per-million-citizens: 143,262
America total-tests: 47,432,950
America total positives: 3,820,821
America tests-per-positive: 12.41
America total population: 331,092,264
America citizens-per-positive: 86.65
Canada tests-per-million-citizens: 91,057
Canada total-tests: 3,438,041
Canada total positives: 109,999
Canada tests-per-positive: 31.26
Canada total population: 37,756,958
Canada citizens-per-positive: 343.25
What do we see? We see that while the US tests about 1.5 times as many citizens-per-million that Canada does, nearly three times as many tests come back positive and nearly four times as many citizens per million are infected. It's pretty obvious that there's simply more COVID-19 going on in the US both in percentages and in raw numbers.
You really think it's stupid to conclude that the difference is some magic "you don't understand countries" factor rather than... oh... Canadians believe COVID-19 is for real and focus on keeping it under control rather than getting their hair cut?
As for that thing you said "The US has a lower per capita death rate than many countries." Let's define "many". The precise number is: NINE:
San Marino - population 33,934
Belgium - population 11,591,989
Andorra - population 77,271
UK - population 67,902,582
Spain - population 46,755,662
Italy - population 60,457,407
Sweden - population 10,102,161
France - population 65,280,436
Chile - population 65,280,436
So you've got two countries (San Marino and Andorra) with tiny populations who are statistically insignificant. You've got four countries who got the snot kicked out of them early on. You've got one county which didn't mandate lockdown (Sweden). That leaves two countries that don't have a good excuse for having a higher death-per-populace figure than the US. Two.
That also completely ignores that a huge number of US cases are within the last couple/few weeks. There's every expectation that the death rates are going to be going up very soon as those recent positive diagnoses start to die. Beating Chile and Belgium isn't out of the question, especially when Chile is less than 2% worse than the US. You're that close to only having one country ahead of you for no good reason.
There are two major demographics in the US: those who are more or less obeying the same rules and guidance that the other, significantly-less-screwed, nations are, and those who are listening to their President. It's pretty clear which demographic is causing the problem, and if you didn't guess "the ones who say 'face masks make no difference, except to make people feel safer'", then you got it wrong.
All statistics from https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
Yes no-one talks about viral load enough (Score:5, Interesting)
People everywhere seem to talk like catching a virus is a binary thing.
But it's not the case at all, any reduction you can have in exposure is helpful. Viral load is a huge component as to how sick you will get, to your body being overwhelmed by the virus or not.
That means that masks do help - not even just from filtration, but also from preventing you getting contamination you have have on your hands onto your mouth.
That also means that what you should be concerned about is the duration of exposure to other people. Outside walking around, never next to someone for more than a moment? No risk. Inside wandering around, never close to any one person for long (like a grocery store) - low risk, as long as you wash your hands and don't touch your face.
Inside next to people for a while is then obviously the highest risk, and even outdoors for a while next to the same people all the time carries some risk (though much lower as natural air currents will quickly disperse anything).
This is also why the world is probably a lot better off than it would seem, way more people have had low level exposure and already developed some resistance. The death rate continues to fall generally [worldometers.info] (though there's been a slight uptick recently) even as the infection rate soars... that infection rate is measuring a lot of people who have had low level exposure mow, have developed a resistance and are not going to get all that sick.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, imagine catching this virus as if you are in a castle and the enemy is launching flaming cannonballs at you. If you just say, 'meh, oh well' and let all of them fly over your wall, you'll have a thousand fires to put out. Instead, if you erect some sort of blockade to prevent some of them from getting in, now you only have 10 fires to put out, which is much more manageable.
Though I don't think that's quite the right metaphor since ten fires or one thousand fires I don't think your body realizes that it needs to send out the firefighters.
Instead I think it has to do with the initial viral reproduction. With only 10 fires to start with your body looks around and goes, "huh, what's with those orange things". Then they spread into 10,000 fires and your body goes "oh crap! I need to do something about this!". When they spread again into 100,000 fires your body finds some firefight
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Selfish bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because only selfish bastards can't stay cooped up with their kids for 6 months.
So because you grew crotchfruit, you should endanger others? We have more than enough people on this mudball already. Breeding doesn't make you special.
I understand your point, it's a valid point for sure, but what kind of life is it to just sit inside?
Nobody is asking you to just sit inside. Rather, they are asking you to distance yourself (or your family) from others. You can still do stuff while you're inside, besides sitting; or you can go out, if you can find some way to do it while keeping your distance from others. It's the people who are saying "I have a mask so I can now be in a crowd" that are be
Re: (Score:3)
Most studies are showing that as this is a coronavirus like the common cold people are not developing lasting immunity. Antibodies are lasting only about 2 months. So just because you had it doesnt mean you are safe. 2 -3 months from when you cleared the infection someone not wearing a mask can give it to you again.
Still not clear if its milder or worse the second time around. Not enough cases yet to tell but the way things are going we will eventually have that data.
A selfish-bastard mask with a valve? (Score:2)
Illinois Assembly Speaker Michael Madigan, is not only a selfish bastard for giving nuclear powerplant operator Exelon and provider of zero-carbon electricity 150 million in rate increases in exchange of offering a paltry 1 million in contracts and jobs to persons in his South Side Chicago district of minorities and other underrepresented persons, he is seen in this picture wearing the type of construction-site face mask with a valve.
Whereas significant gains are made every day by wind and solar power, t
Re: Selfish bastards (Score:2)
3% of the US population is 10 million people. "Novel" coronavirus means there is no pre-existing immunity from previous disease.
I'd say that warrants more than a few considerations, especially when masks are relatively low on the inconvenience scale.
Re: (Score:2)
If that extra 30% includes you or someone you know, it's a HUGE amount.
30% is actually a lot. Most businesses would stand on their heads and jump through a thousand hoops to save 30% of their expenses. We have seen that several states are having to rent refrigerated trucks to handle the overflow of corpses.
The only reason the death rate isn't even higher is that we have also seen a fall off in other causes of death due to more telecommuting and such.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that's 3% above the monthly average, not that we're 3% above the annual. Because with only 3 months of disease, that could well mean more than 10% more deaths in a year.
What does that 3% refer to? We're 3% above what normal? Because it's the first time I actually hear someone put a number on it, could you please provide the source for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
Our death rate is about 3% above normal as a result of covid-19.
No, I'm not suggesting it's a non-issue. But "a lot more people dying than usual"? Nope, not happening.
Really? Because I just skimmed an article in the JAMA that says that the death rate in the U.S. from March 1 to May 30 was 16% above normal [jamanetwork.com] (122,300/78,1000). I'm curious where you got your numbers; I'm fairly certain that they're wrong by almost an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
I just skimmed an article in the JAMA that says that the death rate in the U.S. from March 1 to May 30 was 16% above normal (122,300/78,1000). I'm curious where you got your numbers; I'm fairly certain that they're wrong by almost an order of magnitude.
Not to mention, death rates from other activities are way way down because engagement in those activities is also way way down. If the overall death rate has actually gone up despite those other rates going down, a lot more people are dying from illness than usual. An unfortunate but decisive poke in the eye for people who are treating it like it's "the flu".
Re: (Score:2)
OK, now look up "a lot," and then look up literary context for historical usage in the contexts of deaths.
Your comment is so horrible, you're basically role-playing Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
A mask is hard to breathe in? What kind of masks are you wear... dude, wear a surgical mask, not your BDSM gear!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have asthma and perhaps a touch of claustrophobia. A mask makes it significantly harder for me to breathe. I still wear one when I go shopping, because I'm not that grade of asshole. But it definitely impinges on my quality of life to a substantial degree. I feel slightly panicky almost the whole time it's on my face, starting just a few minutes into the experience. And I sweat more, which the world does not need.
This is true whether we're talking about surgical masks (I bought a 50 box of 3M disposable s
Re: (Score:2)
Your concept of hospitals as being a point of increased risk really underscores what a complete ignoramus you are.
It is the only place in the entire community where people receive a high quality screening and anybody who might be infected is placed in isolation. It is one of the safest places, not a point of risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is threatened by a face mask (Score:5, Insightful)
as much as it is being forced to stop at a red light. The horror!
Re:Freedom is threatened by a face mask (Score:4, Insightful)
the really "funny" ones are the claims that mask mandates are unconstitutional and unenforceable
just as the most obvious example, almost everywhere in the USA prohibits public nudity and those laws exist for no reason other than most people don't care to see naked folks wandering around and no one would dream of suggesting the laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable
so yes, with valid public health concerns, even if it is only a partial "solution", mask mandates are absolutely constitutional and enforceable and since they are entirely temporary and non-invasive you can't even attempt to make the arguments that anti-vaccination folks do
Re: (Score:2)
The government didn't pay for the air we breathe. So normally it has no power to force you to wear a mask. The only reason it can do so right now is due to a public health emergency. The peop
Re: (Score:2)
If wearing face masks meant you end up getting laid then people would be wearing them like condoms, they'd always have a couple of them in their pocket, a drawer full of them at home, and they'd be bragging about size, flavours and the perfect fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Ebil gubermint is mandating pants! Don't let the Gubermint take away yer freedums, refuse to wear pants!
One thing that will annoy me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only would have the WHO&co lies have helped destroyed their credibility, it would also have needlessly increased how long this mess takes.
That was one great little white lie ...
Re:One thing that will annoy me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We got our shit together in Oregon, we have mandatory mask policy even outdoors whenever within 6' of another person.
Our only problem is young people are still holding house parties. The government isn't supposed to stop that; that's the People's fault only.
In Oregon, individual risk remains low, ICU beds are not forecast to run out, and the government is responding to events on a daily basis, including adding new restrictions when the People fail to contain the spread.
And the US federal government doesn't
Re: (Score:3)
Hey dumb ass, the point of the lockdowns was that we didn't know what was effective yet.
Of course in that situation, if you had known what to do specifically, you wouldn't have had to do the generalized thing.
Your comment is too stupid even for slashdot. Pull yourself together.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's most certainly not going to be discovered. The combination of everything is what can fight the virus. Social distancing where possible. Where not, because you do need to get groceries, wear the mask.
Europe got some really good results from that combo tactics.
Wearing pants helps also (Score:2)
Observe the urine studies [moonofalabama.org] and see for yourself
So does that mean herd immunity is viable? (Score:3)
If you can keep most infections asymptomatic, suddenly going for herd immunity is a much less daunting experiment.
Re: So does that mean herd immunity is viable? (Score:4, Informative)
Herd immunity for a novel (no pre-existing immunity in the population) virus that's highly infectious would likely require >90% of folks to have been infected. (Almost 300 million out of 330+ million people in the US alone.)
There's a reason we aim for >90% vaccination rates for measles and polio. 50% wont cut it, and we're not even at the 10% mark yet for coronavirus.
Re: So does that mean herd immunity is viable? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pandemic flu's on the other hand exhaust themselves every year away from the equator. Also mumps was so dangerous precisely because it fluctuated between herd immunity and epidemic. Herd immunity works for a lot of viruses at least temporarily, and the herd immunity threshold varies.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, you go to the nearest hospital and get the COVID patients to sneeze in your face. Then report back how it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can keep most infections asymptomatic, suddenly going for herd immunity is a much less daunting experiment.
No. Look at the percent of the population affected so far.
You would fill up the ICU, and the total deaths caused by the crisis would be double (or more) the number caused by COVID directly.
You need at least 70% to have been affected to even get partial herd immunity, we'd have to have full-sized waves of the virus a couple times a year for a decade to get there.
Let's at least acknowledge a few things (Score:2)
The CDC, the WHO, and others really dropped the ball on this one. They first claimed that masks didn't work at all. That seemed to be for two separate reasons. First, the medical establishment is in general pretty conservative about accepting things and what counts as evidence. That's in part in response to a general problem where there are a lot of pseudoscientific proposals, so the default is to assume that something doesn't work without evidence, even if there's strong common sense, logical reasons. The
Re: Let's at least acknowledge a few things (Score:5, Informative)
No, they said people shouldn't try to hoard N95 masks because folks working in hospitals and with vulnerable populations like in nursing homes should get priority.
They never claimed masks didn't work. Go back and read their statements for yourself instead of reading Breitbart's opinion on it.
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, some partners are reporting higher than usual demand for select N95 respirators and face masks. CDC does not currently recommend the use of face masks for the general public. This virus is not spreading in the community. If you are sick or a patient under investigation and not hospitalized, CDC recommends wearing a face mask when around other people and before entering a health care provider’s office, but when you are alone, in your home, you do not need to wear a mask. People who are in close contact with someone with novel coronavirus, for example, household contacts and care givers of people with known or suspected 2019, I’m sorry, nCoV 2019, we should wear a face mask if they are in the same room as the patient and that patient is not able to wear a face mask.
Or look here https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data [umn.edu] where masks for general use is dismissed in early April, almost the exact same time the CDC itself reversed course and recommend facemasks outside which was explicitly at th
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
too late for being smart (Score:4, Insightful)
This happened with the state-level adoption of mandatory seat belts. Yes, it's an imposition on individual rights. While individual rights are extremely important in western society, they aren't infinite.
It also happened with "no shoes no shirt no service" in the commercial sector. Yes, you might feel that it's your god-given right to wander into a store and leave a steaming trail of fungal toe-jam behind you, but the proprietor says otherwise. Suck it up, buttercup. You don't always get to set the rules.
Its currently happening right now with regards to LGBTs. A huge chunk of society has decided that LGBTs are actual people and actual citizens, just like everyone else, with the exact same set of rights and responsibilities. Yes, several religions consider them to be sub-human. Too firkin bad. As a civilization, we've decided otherwise. Preach whatever homophobic crap you want in your place of worship. Beyond those walls, you will follow the new rules or run afoul of the law and face the consequences. Keep on lobbying for religious exemptions. That will buy you another decade or so. Eventually, you WILL follow the trail of progress. Like it. Or not.
It's going to happen with masks. It's just going to take time. Walmart now requires masks in their stores. And they're enforcing it. Whatcha gonna do now, middle America?
Re: too late for being smart (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:too late for being smart (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, as I get older, I can feel myself getting more and more conservative by the year. Conservatives CAN play a positive role in society. They are more careful. Sometimes, they prevent liberals from foolishly charging off a cliff without looking. But my god man I can't get behind the Republicans or the right-wingers. Their platforms are a combination of 50-year-out-of-date ideas, racism, mysogyny and "stand-by-Trump-no-matter-what-he-does-as-long-as-he-cuts-taxes". What they have is a recipe for suicide-soup. For gods sake, even George Will has abandoned them. When a guy like THAT tells you that maybe you should tone down the right-wing crap, you gotta know in your heart that you're out of control.
As for accusing me of treating people like enemies, that's really rich coming from someone who's obviously a Trump supporter. That guy's been demonizing literally anyone not-named-Trump for 3.5 years now. I'm done trying to be polite in the face of that.
This isn't a good situation. This country needs a competent middle-left party competing with a competent middle-right party. At the moment, we have the former but not the latter. I'm making political donations for the very first time in my life. This guy and his party need to be voted out of power for 2 or maybe 3 presidential cycles so they can assess their current state and rebuild into something a bit more positive. The Democrats are far from perfect, but the Republicans are entirely off the rails at the national level.
But (Score:2)
but ma freedum to get sick!
How I respond to improperly masked folks (Score:5, Funny)
Seems pretty fishy (Score:2)
Medical masks have existed for (I am guessing here) probably over a century at this point. I know plague doctors had special masks. Additionally, like the article points out there have been whole populations who have been wearing masks for decades.
And it is just now while the politicians are trying to force people to wear masks that we find that they actually protect the wearer? It is simply 100% impossible that some medical establishment, or county would not have already tested theses masks. Is this articl
Re:Story keeps changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You stop raging yourself. When you go back to old discoveries, then it just isn't a new discovery. You then get angry and call others idiots, but you should start seeing yourself how you obediently follow every "new discovery" like a trained dog, never question it, always accept it, and this somehow entitles you to your behaviour. Sorry, but you're not as smart as you think.
Re:Story keeps changing (Score:5, Informative)
The CDC (and most of the rest of the medical community) basically lied to everyone, telling us that face masks wouldn't help, in order to make sure there were enough masks for medical professionals. They already admitted this.
You're lying. That is not true.
The WHO and the CDC have both said not to use N95, because there aren't enough for medical professionals. That's still true in the US.
The WHO and the CDC did say that the risk of touching your face and giving yourself COVID-19 from wearing a cloth face mask was greater than the benefits provided. New studies came out, and they changed their recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're lying. That is not true.
It's easy to check exactly what was and was not said. You don't have to rely on personal memory of events. There are written, audio and video records freely accessible to everyone.
"There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddli
Re: (Score:3)
You're lying. That is not true.
It's easy to check exactly what was and was not said. You don't have to rely on personal memory of events. There are written, audio and video records freely accessible to everyone.
"There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." ~ Anthony Fauci
"Seriously people - STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" ~ Jerome Adams
The WHO and the CDC did say that the risk of touching your face and giving yourself COVID-19 from wearing a cloth face mask was greater than the benefits provided. New studies came out, and they changed their recommendation.
This is a gross mischaracterization. Further there is recording of Anthony Fauci himself in his own words explaining why during a congressional hearing:
When asked about his earlier statement "There is no consensus on wearing masks" he replied:
"Ok, we going to play that game. I don't regret that but let me explain to you what happened. At the time there was a paucity of equipment that our healthcare providers needed who put themselves daily in harms way of taking care of people who are ill.
We did not want to divert masks and PPE away from them to be used by the people. Now that we have enough we recommend it."
When given the opportunity under oath to tell the whole truth there was no mention of new information the only reason given was PPE scarcity.
Sure... what's your point, exactly? What you're describing is exactly what I described. The CDC didn't "lie" about wearing masks at any time, as far as I know. They used the best science that was available at the time. If there's some sort of conspiracy here, I'm not seeing it.
Re:Story keeps changing (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the prevalent distortion. Here's how it went down.
Scientists say: Masks prevent diseases.
Conspiracy nuts say: Masks don't work, they are a symbolic muzzle to silence you.
CDC says: Please don't hoard masks, we don't have enough for medical professionals and they need them direly.
Conspiracy nuts say: See? Even the CDC admits they don't work!
Now guess who screams the loudest and whose message gets broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
People have been wearing masks to ward off disease since the Middle Ages.
Maybe even longer than that, once you realize that "evil spirits" warded off by the wearing of masks do exist, and are actually infectious disease agents.
"Ugga ugga wugga ugga wugga ugga wugga ugga UGGA!" said the Shaman, in 15826 bce.
Translation: "If we had masks for all of you, you'd be safe, it is Good to Be Shaman!"
Re:Story keeps changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because there is a chorus of conflicting and changing opinions doesn't mean we can't exercise good judgement. We all have to think for ourselves. especially in the Internet age.
I can show you trusted "experts" who say we should intentionally infect children, masks are harmful and hydrochloroquine actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
I can show you trusted "experts" who say we should intentionally infect children, masks are harmful and hydrochloroquine actually works.
People should think about all the nonsense "experts" say next time anyone appeals to the authority of experts.
Are you saying "common sense" told you hydrochloroquine doesn't work? Because this study in Michigan says it saved lives [henryford.com]. I don't claim to know for sure whether it works. How about you?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed you are right.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that Hydroxychloroquine was maligned in the press and by rushed studies that had conflicts of interest.
I post this response from IHU Marseille to a critique of its latest paper, because it contains references to multiples studies at the bottom showing the overwhelming success of this drug in treating patients after infection from SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.mediterranee-infec... [mediterran...ection.com]
Re: (Score:2)
France has banned the use of hydrochloroquine for Covid after reviewing solid data and outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are no harmful side effects, any course of treatment is certainly worth a try. If there are harmful side effects, it may be better to question expert advice before rushing in with false assumptions.
>I don't claim to know for sure whether it works. How about you?
No I am not an expert in this area. A basic understanding of what it does i
Re:Story keeps changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes, the story keeps changing.
Doctors: "We don't yet know what to do."
Pundits: "Blah blah blah"
Doctors: "Isolation might help, handwashing might help, masks might help, these are all reasonable precautions so do them all until we have more information.
Pundits: "Blah, blah blah, blah, blah."
Doctors: "Isolation is helping a lot, masks might help a lot, but we don't know which masks are actually effective yet. Wear something, keep washing your hands, stay home if you can."
Pundits: "Blah. Blah! Blah blah."
Doctors: "We now know that masks help a lot, and even light face coverings might help, but we're not sure how much yet, so wear something."
Pundits: "Blah! Blah!"
Doctors: "It turns out even the light face coverings help a lot, if everybody would just cover their damn faces we'd have it under control, and even if you get infected, a light face covering reduces your chance of death because you had a lower initial viral load."
Pundits: "But muh Freedum Fries dernt fit thru the mersk!!!"
Changing information is expected whenever you're learning about anything!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to everyone: but this is how coronaviruses work. They spread, people get exposed and either die or recover, and then the virus moves on. Wearing a mask or not makes little difference. However, if that is what it takes to get people comfortable with opening then just wear one. You can't fight mass stupidity anymore, you just need to give in.
I hate to break it to you, but it has been blindingly obvious since the start of the pandemic that exposure extent is directly proportional to severity. You need only look at the staggering percentage of healthcare workers who have died to suspect as much.
In fact, we've known that larger initial viral exposure results in more serious disease since at least 2010 [nih.gov], and we've been talking about it in the context of coronavirus for at least three months [hpnonline.com]. This is nothing new, except perhaps for those who have n
Re: (Score:2)
They don't like it when you go shopping with something like that. Trust me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you trust the number of ~3900 deaths in Wuhan you're a damned idiot. The fact that China has numerous places under quarantine and refusing to test people unless they pay to be tested for the batflu right now, should tell you exactly what type of situation is going on there.