To Mask or Not to Mask?

[jamil]

Interesting article on how easily the virus can spread:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90580290/one-person-in-the-room-with-you-has-covid-19-heres-how-long-it-takes-to-get-infected

This article was based on a model created at MIT regarding virus transmission. Their model allows someone to see how long it would take for the virus to spread in a given space if only one person had the virus. The most interesting part for me was one test they ran to simulate a family dinner. Let’s say 10 people are in an average dining room with no masks. If one person has the virus, the room is only safe for about 18 minutes. Adding a cloth mask to everyone only adds another 2 minutes of safety. Adding surgical masks, worn properly, and the number jumps to nearly 2 hours. It would seem that the cloth masks are nearly useless.

How do we know the model isn’t full of ****? Models have been full of **** so far.

 

[BugI02]

Smart money says Wild Ass Guess. Too many quantities they would need to know accurately, in order to make an accurate model, they can't know to any precise degree without calibrated testing - viral release rate, uniformity of distribution, latency of aerosols and larger droplets, minimum viral load inhaled to cause infection etc. I can see them modeling some fluid flow but it would be just pretty pictures in a sim without knowing a lot more about the particulars

 

[jsharmon7]

How do we know the model isn’t full of ****? Models have been full of **** so far.

Or it could be accurate, and we really need to be wearing surgical masks. I would hope supply has caught up and they’re available.

 

[BugI02]

Visualize them trying to model a fart at that Thanksgiving dinner. Then think about all the things they would need to know to predict who would smell it and when. The problem they claim they modeled is considerably more complex than that

 

[Libertarian01]

Everything I read says that when you do a true, objective study of the efficacy of face masks the answer is, "We don't know, and there is some evidence that they may increase health problems."

Link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...1ZjR11R0laNqEDKY88nsv9xAFWesplce1L92kkmx2Y1Pw (If you use adblock open in private window, then readable)

Link: https://www.wired.com/story/the-face-mask-debate-reveals-a-scientific-double-standard/

Several studies in the USA and Australia found "...Take, for example, a large randomized trial of mask use among US college students in the 2006–07 influenza season. The reduction in illness among those wearing face masks in that study was not statistically significant..."

And in Australia, "...Or take another study of the same influenza season, this time in Australia, which found no definitive effect. That one looked at adults living with children who had influenza. Less than half the people randomized into the group of mask wearers reported using them “most or all of the time.” In fact, they were often sleeping next to their sick children without them. This bears little resemblance to the question of whether you should wear a mask among strangers at the grocery store in the midst of a pandemic..."

Link: https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/

Regarding N95 masks, they do not protect if you are infected and exhale, plus, their filter is too large to stop Covid19. The size requirement to contain Covid19 is 0.125μm.
"...A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to
0.3 μm from reaching the wearerÂ’s face.

• [url]https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained[/URL].
• Problem: no source control. An N95 does not filter exhaled air passing through the exhaust/exhalation valve (for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask).
  

Also,

"...In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, “no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism...”

Also, some try to lie to us:

"...In Kansas, the 90 counties without mask mandates had lower coronavirus infection rates than the 15 counties with mask mandates. To hide this fact, the Kansas health department tried to manipulate the official statistics and data presentation..."

And finally, from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"...We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask..."

Link: https://fee.org/articles/new-study-...eness-of-masks-in-preventing-covid-19-spread/

And here becomes interesting. The initial findings are as follows:

"...Research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine last month found that both surgical and cloth masks proved ineffective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19..."

They were forced to print a retraction. But my problem is this:

"...Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction..."

So instead of correcting the reported data and reinterpreting, which may have had similar results, the authors were forced to retract. Heaven forbid any data counter to the politically driven mantra of "must mask" be allowed anywhere.

Last Link (aren't you glad): https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/0...prevent-covid-infection-and-transmission.html

Masks may actually increase the spread of the disease (see anectdotally Kansas from above):

"...may even increase transmission if they act as fomites [objects or materials which are likely to carry infection] or prompt other behaviours that transmit the virus such as face touching. For example, a face mask that has been worn for several hours becomes moist and acts as a potential source of contamination. Studies show that people touch their faces 15-23 times per hour on average (9,10), and this may mean that eyes and contaminated face masks are touched, spreading the virus..."

Also, nobody has truly studied the efficacy of mask wearing preventing the spread of the disease, at least in the UK. That said, there may be some from somewhere else.

"...Available evidence from RCTs is equivocal as to whether or not wearing face masks in community settings results in a reduction in clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections. No relevant studies concerned SARS-CoV-2 or were undertaken in community settings in the UK..."

The mantra seems to be "We must do something! Ergo, we must make people wear masks!" I say that if we "must do something" let us require that every American eat bacon at least once per day! It tastes great and it's protein that will help your body fight all infections, not just Covid19. Let's get started today!

Regards,

Doug

 

[nonobaddog]

How do we know the model isn’t full of ****? Models have been full of **** so far.

This is one of the attractive things about making models. Think of this as a feature and not a flaw.
It is kind of like the people that predict the end of the world. Nobody has ever got it right but someday...
Same with models, they like to keep throwing them at the wall hoping she will stick.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Interesting article on how easily the virus can spread:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90580290/one-person-in-the-room-with-you-has-covid-19-heres-how-long-it-takes-to-get-infected

This article was based on a model created at MIT regarding virus transmission. Their model allows someone to see how long it would take for the virus to spread in a given space if only one person had the virus. The most interesting part for me was one test they ran to simulate a family dinner. Let’s say 10 people are in an average dining room with no masks. If one person has the virus, the room is only safe for about 18 minutes. Adding a cloth mask to everyone only adds another 2 minutes of safety. Adding surgical masks, worn properly, and the number jumps to nearly 2 hours. It would seem that the cloth masks are nearly useless.

I haven't played with it for long, but I've been unable to duplicate their results. But every one I checked going from no mask to flannel cotton the change was more than 2 minutes, going to multi layer cotton/silk even more. From the actual paper

Standard disposable surgical masks are characterized by p[SUB]m[/SUB] =1 − 5% (68), and so allow the cumulative exposure time to be extended by 400-10000 times. Even cloth face coverings with p[SUB]m[/SUB] = 10 − 20% (69) would extend recommended exposure times by a factor of 25-100. Our inference of the efficacy of face masks in mitigating airborne transmission is roughly consistent with studies showing the benefits of mask use on COVID-19 transmission at the scales of both cities and countries

 

[jamil]

Visualize them trying to model a fart at that Thanksgiving dinner. Then think about all the things they would need to know to predict who would smell it and when. The problem they claim they modeled is considerably more complex than that

Mine are usually epic. EVERYONE winces simultaneously.

 

[BugI02]

Mine are usually epic. EVERYONE winces simultaneously.

Do you have fatality data?

 

[jamil]

Do you have fatality data?

They’re not deadly. But people may temporarily wish it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Regarding N95 masks, they do not protect if you are infected and exhale, plus, their filter is too large to stop Covid19. The size requirement to contain Covid19 is 0.125μm.
"...A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to
0.3 μm from reaching the wearerÂ’s face.

This is a very common misconception. The masks are rated at 0.3 microns because particles in that size range are some of the most difficult to filter. That is exactly why 0.3 microns was chosen to evaluate and certify filter materials.
The 0.3 micron rating is NOT a cutoff size and and does NOT mean it filters particles "down to" that size.

The filter material in the 95 masks and the 100 masks (regardless whether they are "N", "P" or "R") will filter particles bigger than 0.3 microns as well as particles smaller than 0.3 microns at a higher efficiency than the 0.3 micron particles.

This is a well known phenomenon and this fact has been stated many times but people just don't get it - probably because it is not intuitive plus they just don't want to get it.

This is a NASA article that explains how this works. It is technical so if you don't want to read it just look at the graph on page 7.
https://www.usairpurifiers.com/media/BSE/NASA-HEPA-report-7-2020.pdf

The toy masks that you see everybody wearing everywhere are not like this - they don't filter much at all. There is no point in blaming good respirator masks and saying they don't work because they do and they have been working well for a long time. Blame the mandates to wear crappy masks that don't work, that is the problem.

 

[doddg]

I can't quit laughing!
Funniest thing I've read all day.

 

[nonobaddog]

I can't quit laughing!
Funniest thing I've read all day.

Curious - which part is the funniest?

 

[doddg]

Curious - which part is the funniest?

I was responding to this sequence of humorous comments below.
Your post wasn't there when I clicked on "Post Quick Reply" b/c my screen hadn't refreshed to see your sane comment after those other humorous ones.

Visualize them trying to model a fart at that Thanksgiving dinner. Then think about all the things they would need to know to predict who would smell it and when. The problem they claim they modeled is considerably more complex than that

Mine are usually epic. EVERYONE winces simultaneously.

Do you have fatality data?

They’re not deadly. But people may temporarily wish it.

 

[nonobaddog]

I was responding to this sequence of humorous comments below.
Your post wasn't there when I clicked on "Post Quick Reply" b/c my screen hadn't refreshed to see your sane comment after those other humorous ones.

Thanks - In turn, I had not seen the funny posts so I thought I had screwed up somewhere.

 

[qwerty]

DOJ official playing along....

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1337630325015375872/pu/vid/592x1280/TLQkgR6jMCtYZyaK.mp4?tag=10

 

[Libertarian01]

This is a very common misconception. The masks are rated at 0.3 microns because particles in that size range are some of the most difficult to filter. That is exactly why 0.3 microns was chosen to evaluate and certify filter materials.
The 0.3 micron rating is NOT a cutoff size and and does NOT mean it filters particles "down to" that size.

The filter material in the 95 masks and the 100 masks (regardless whether they are "N", "P" or "R") will filter particles bigger than 0.3 microns as well as particles smaller than 0.3 microns at a higher efficiency than the 0.3 micron particles.

This is a well known phenomenon and this fact has been stated many times but people just don't get it - probably because it is not intuitive plus they just don't want to get it.

This is a NASA article that explains how this works. It is technical so if you don't want to read it just look at the graph on page 7.
https://www.usairpurifiers.com/media/BSE/NASA-HEPA-report-7-2020.pdf

The toy masks that you see everybody wearing everywhere are not like this - they don't filter much at all. There is no point in blaming good respirator masks and saying they don't work because they do and they have been working well for a long time. Blame the mandates to wear crappy masks that don't work, that is the problem.

What you are saying may well be true, I am not an expert. I was simply quoting some information from other alleged experts.

However, even if your critique of the representation is true in this matter it does not address another issue of N95 masks not being designed to filter exhaled air.

The point of my links and simple references was to highlight key points but certainly not all points. The overall premise of my argument is that there are absolutely NO conclusive studies showing that wearing a mask will help save lives to any significant amount. To base governmental policy on wishful thinking is misguided and it is wrong! Any policy that any level of government applies to the people under its authority should be based upon solid, measurable scientific data. Even if the government is overstepping its authority at least it would be based upon facts that could be argued. The forcible requirement upon citizens and businesses in regards to mask requirements may be laudable in its goal but it is laughable on its efficacy.

I have taken several cooking classes. They all tell about what temperature meat must be cooked to in order to provide overall safety. The temperature for each meat is different. Chicken is 165[SUP]0[/SUP]F, beef steak and pork at 145[SUP]0[/SUP]F. The arbiters of these temperatures could have just been generic but they are not. They decided, based upon research and science, what temperature chicken should be cooked to and maintained at to determine an overall safety for the consumer. This is the kind of science I like to base policy on, not the wishful thinking that masking up will do anything productive other than to raise the stock price of mask making companies.

Regards,

Doug

 

[nonobaddog]

However, even if your critique of the representation is true in this matter it does not address another issue of N95 masks not being designed to filter exhaled air.

This can be true or not. It depends on whether or not the mask has an exhaust valve. The exhaust valves are plainly visible.

If the mask has an exhaust valve then it does not filter exhaled air. These masks are worn to protect the wearer such as when removing asbestos from buildings or in other hazardous environments, etc.

If the mask does not have an exhaust valve then it does filter exhaled air - unless the wearer exhales forcibly enough to push the mask away from their face and break the seal. Then, of course, the exhaled air goes around the mask and is not filtered. It is pretty easy to avoid this. These masks protect the wearer and others around them.

This is true of all the common types of respirator masks which are... "N" for not oil particle resistant, "R" for oil particle resistant and "P" for oil particle proof.
The numeric part of the mask type is the filtering efficiency measured at 0.3 microns "95" for at least 95%, "99" for at least 99% and "100" for at least 99.97%.
So the available respirator mask types are N95, R95, P95, N97, R97, P97, N100, R100, P100.

The above only applies to respirator masks that that are certified to meet standards from NIOSH, etc.

The masks I see being worn mostly are little paper things barely on their chins or snot rags worn like they used to wear when robbing stagecoaches. Those are not certified to stop anything. It seems a bit unproductive to even discuss how effective they are because they come in many, many different qualities of cloth and paper and they rarely fit well and do not achieve a seal at all to the wearers face. They have too much variation so when "experts" talk about how effective these types of masks are they are blowing smoke up places - just propaganda which they are paid to dispense.

 

[Libertarian01]

This can be true or not. It depends on whether or not the mask has an exhaust valve. The exhaust valves are plainly visible.

If the mask has an exhaust valve then it does not filter exhaled air. These masks are worn to protect the wearer such as when removing asbestos from buildings or in other hazardous environments, etc.

If the mask does not have an exhaust valve then it does filter exhaled air - unless the wearer exhales forcibly enough to push the mask away from their face and break the seal. Then, of course, the exhaled air goes around the mask and is not filtered. It is pretty easy to avoid this. These masks protect the wearer and others around them.

This is true of all the common types of respirator masks which are... "N" for not oil particle resistant, "R" for oil particle resistant and "P" for oil particle proof.
The numeric part of the mask type is the filtering efficiency measured at 0.3 microns "95" for at least 95%, "99" for at least 99% and "100" for at least 99.97%.
So the available respirator mask types are N95, R95, P95, N97, R97, P97, N100, R100, P100.

The above only applies to respirator masks that that are certified to meet standards from NIOSH, etc.

The masks I see being worn mostly are little paper things barely on their chins or snot rags worn like they used to wear when robbing stagecoaches. Those are not certified to stop anything. It seems a bit unproductive to even discuss how effective they are because they come in many, many different qualities of cloth and paper and they rarely fit well and do not achieve a seal at all to the wearers face. They have too much variation so when "experts" talk about how effective these types of masks are they are blowing smoke up places - just propaganda which they are paid to dispense.

I don't disagree overall with what you are saying. It appears that we may be debating minute details, which is fine in some circumstances, but not at loggerheads overall.

How masks are worn, and sealed, and under the nose, and worn incorrectly. etc etc etc, leads me to believe they are not significantly effective in public use.

We are cool.

The shame of it is that any type of honest and open debate regarding the efficacy of mask wearing will NOT appear in any relevant public forum.

Regards,

Doug

 

[foszoe]

What you are saying may well be true, I am not an expert. I was simply quoting some information from other alleged experts.

However, even if your critique of the representation is true in this matter it does not address another issue of N95 masks not being designed to filter exhaled air.

The point of my links and simple references was to highlight key points but certainly not all points. The overall premise of my argument is that there are absolutely NO conclusive studies showing that wearing a mask will help save lives to any significant amount. To base governmental policy on wishful thinking is misguided and it is wrong! Any policy that any level of government applies to the people under its authority should be based upon solid, measurable scientific data. Even if the government is overstepping its authority at least it would be based upon facts that could be argued. The forcible requirement upon citizens and businesses in regards to mask requirements may be laudable in its goal but it is laughable on its efficacy.

I have taken several cooking classes. They all tell about what temperature meat must be cooked to in order to provide overall safety. The temperature for each meat is different. Chicken is 165[SUP]0[/SUP]F, beef steak and pork at 145[SUP]0[/SUP]F. The arbiters of these temperatures could have just been generic but they are not. They decided, based upon research and science, what temperature chicken should be cooked to and maintained at to determine an overall safety for the consumer. This is the kind of science I like to base policy on, not the wishful thinking that masking up will do anything productive other than to raise the stock price of mask making companies.

Regards,

Doug

If you'd taken those classes a decade ago or so, those temperatures would have been different, especially pork. New knowledge changes old practices, even in more well established sciences.

I firmly believe a person who starts off in the I don't know position on masks would still be there. If you started off I don't know but leaning one way or the other you're probably still there. I am sure I will find most of the exceptions here.

ITL though the people I know that have taken a strong position on either side are also highly political and it broke along party lines.