Coronavirus

Tools    





So the mask may stop the solid matter, it may limit the airflow both ways, but under a strong cough or a sneeze, almost everything contained in the sputum in your mouth and lungs that's turned into a vapor goes right through a mask - unless it's airtight (like a self-contained breathing apparatus)
But surely it doesn't go through at the same speed? And that study shows that some aerosols are filtered, right?

So wouldn't a benefit of the mask be that if it slows the particles a cough would be more "contained"? And if it filters even some of the particles, it would reduce risk? Plus, containing droplets is no small thing. I say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of droplets from children who don't understand how to cover their coughs/sneezes.



I agree and disagree. Masks help some. I don't know that any conclusive evidence has been supplied that proves they help a great deal.
How much evidence would be sufficient? Asking in advance since I know from experience that posting evidence is often a waste of time if there isn't some previously agreed-upon idea of what's going to "count." Otherwise someone need only find one counter-example to anything (which is trivially easy, especially if someone wants to find it) to call the whole thing a wash.

I think what is more accurate is masks help some, but don't help others
The physics don't really change from person to person, so I don't think this is true. The "others" it "doesn't help" would have to be engaging in different behavior.

and for some demographics (such as children) they can even be a hazard.
"Can be" is such a low bar to clear that it functionally allows someone to believe anything.

If masks helped a great deal, then I think we'd have statistics by now that would support those who wore masks didn't get the disease and by far, those who did not use masks got it much more readily. But the statistics seem to say the opposite.
To be clear, by "the statistics seem to say," you just mean that thing you posted above, already partially addressed, yeah?



But surely it doesn't go through at the same speed? And that study shows that some aerosols are filtered, right?

So wouldn't a benefit of the mask be that if it slows the particles a cough would be more "contained"? And if it filters even some of the particles, it would reduce risk? Plus, containing droplets is no small thing. I say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of droplets from children who don't understand how to cover their coughs/sneezes.
Yes, yes, and yes.

But consider again seeing your breath through a mask in the winter time...

You don't even have to breath hard (nothing like a sneeze) and a huge cloud that you can see comes out of your lungs and goes right through the mask.

Sure, some of that may be filtered (the cloud may not be quite as big or dense as if you had no mask), and the solid droplets will get stuck in the mask, but the reality is the vast majority of your breath and whatever it might be carrying is coming right through the mask with very little force behind it at all and floats away on the air.

Now consider someone inhales that cloud of vapor that you just breathed out through your mask and you are carrying virus. (Will it contain enough viral load to infect? That's debatable - it may depend on the immune system of the person inhaling infected vapor, it may depend on the ambient air currents that help dissipate concentration, it may depend on a lot of things - but bottom line - if you can see vapor come through a mask when it's cold, then that same breath is coming through any other time you exhale).

But there is no virus filter on masks - virus "germs" are as small or smaller than the molecules that make up the vapor you can see come out of your mouth when it's cold. If your breath can go through, than anything contained in your breath that is microscopic can go through too.



...What masks did do is become politicized: they became a visual form of virtue signaling...
I agree that mask wearing is politicized, but only by extremist conspiracy believers

The general catch phrase, mask/covid is politicized, is Fox News Channel fake propaganda, with no more beliveability than the National Enquirer and their stories of Bat Boy or Elvis sightings.

Of course there is no political benefit to the left for the last year of lockdowns and business shutdowns, they politically gained nothing from it, so the claim is ridiculous. Just as the claim that India was safe from covid because of quinine which Fox News and others claimed was being held back as a treatment/prevention in the U.S. for Covid due to political reasons by the left.



The physics don't really change from person to person, so I don't think this is true. The "others" it "doesn't help" would have to be engaging in different behavior.

I think I can answer this one rather concisely - we know for a fact that the virus itself varies from person to person. Some people can get a full load and have no symptoms, others can get minor or even weird symptoms, others can wear two masks for weeks then die from the virus. Children rarely get it and the latest studies suggest they don't spread it, young people seem more resistant, comorbidities can advance it quickly... there seem to be an endless list of variables that can protect against it or make one far more susceptible.

The physics of masks may not change, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the virus seems totally variable dependent on the individual (whether they are the carriers or the receivers) - thus my statement that masks may help some (they may mitigate just enough to keep one person from contracting the virus, but for a different person, a much smaller viral load may infect them totally to the point of killing them - so the mask may not be protection enough for some).



I agree that mask wearing is politicized, but only by extremist conspiracy believers

The general catch phrase, mask/covid is politicized, is Fox News Channel fake propaganda, with no more beliveability than the National Enquirer and their stories of Bat Boy or Elvis sightings.

Of course there is no political benefit to the left for the last year of lockdowns and business shutdowns, they politically gained nothing from it, so the claim is ridiculous. Just as the claim that India was safe from covid because of quinine which Fox News and others claimed was being held back as a treatment/prevention in the U.S. for Covid due to political reasons by the left.
Rules, have you forgotten about all the mayors, governors, Congresspeople, etc. who called for and enforced mask mandates upon the public, then were caught not following their own mandates themselves?

What was that? Either they had a suicidal death wish for themselves, their friends & their families (which I think we can all agree is highly unlikely) OR they didn't believe the very science they were mandating for the public.

These "rules for thee, not for me" behaviors were a pure demonstration of mask politicization.



Of course there is no political benefit to the left for the last year of lockdowns and business shutdowns, they politically gained nothing from it, so the claim is ridiculous. Just as the claim that India was safe from covid because of quinine which Fox News and others claimed was being held back as a treatment/prevention in the U.S. for Covid due to political reasons by the left.
Oh, I'd LOVE to argue this point with you - but that would be pure politics.

P.S. the line "rules for thee, but not for me" is not a pun on your I.D.

Always your pal,
Cap.



I think one of the biggest issues with saying "mask wearers are more likely to catch Covid" - aside from the obvious issue of it being self reported and people aren't the most truthful - is the fact that there is no real agreement on what "wearing a mask" actually means. How frequently and in what situations were these people wearing their masks? If they were wearing re-usable masks, what steps were they taking to disinfect the masks between uses? If they were using disposable masks, how frequently were they replacing them? Was their mask properly fitted or was it hanging loosely off their face and exposing their nose and/or mouth? How consistent were they in actually keeping the mask on at all times when in public spaces? How consistent were they in other prevention protocols like social distancing and hand washing?

Also, I'm still waiting on that reputable source I asked for.



I think one of the biggest issues with saying "mask wearers are more likely to catch Covid" - aside from the obvious issue of it being self reported and people aren't the most truthful - is the fact that there is no real agreement on what "wearing a mask" actually means. How frequently and in what situations were these people wearing their masks? If they were wearing re-usable masks, what steps were they taking to disinfect the masks between uses? If they were using disposable masks, how frequently were they replacing them? Was their mask properly fitted or was it hanging loosely off their face and exposing their nose and/or mouth? How consistent were they in actually keeping the mask on at all times when in public spaces? How consistent were they in other prevention protocols like social distancing and hand washing?

Also, I'm still waiting on that reputable source I asked for.
Just for clarification, Madame President, I hope you weren't quoting me with "mask wearers are more likely to catch Covid" because I never said any such thing.

I had only pointed out that some people who wore masks regularly & in the most appropriately advised situations still contracted Covid, regardless.

But some good points here - no one can really wear a mask constantly for months - so perhaps masks are a major mitigating factor, but only if you can stand wearing one 24/7, replacing them every couple hours, for a couple years on end.



On a positive note, I always like to point out that the Spanish Flu (H1N1 influenza A virus) lasted 2 years and 2 months - that was without any 21st century medicine, electronic medical diagnostic technology, ventilators, therapeutic drugs or vaccines. Then, after taking a terrible worldwide toll, it just disappeared.

Right now we are approximately a little over a year and a half into the Covid-19 pandemic and we have all those scientific & medical wonders AND multiple vaccines created in record time that are proving to be relatively safe and remarkably effective.



You said a lot of “avid” mask wearers got Covid. What does that even mean?



And your source used a vague multiple choice survey with no room for nuance or clarification. How often is “often”? Under what circumstances were they not masking? How many layers of cloth did their mask have? What type of fabric was it made of? Were they wearing an actual mask or were they using neck gaiters/bandanas/other cloth coverings? Not all cloth masks are equal. Additionally, were they observing social distancing at home or were they inviting friends/family over or going to other people’s homes to visit?

I also like how you completely ignored Yoda’s question about how much evidence would be enough.



Yes, yes, and yes.

But consider again seeing your breath through a mask in the winter time...

You don't even have to breath hard (nothing like a sneeze) and a huge cloud that you can see comes out of your lungs and goes right through the mask.
But if you are combining masking with distancing, this would be very effective, right? Again, I tried blowing out a candle while masked (yes, I still laugh at the memory) from about a few inches away from the flame and it didn't even flicker.

So even if something is getting through the mask, if it is slowed/contained or redirected back toward the breather/cougher/sneezer and cannot spread as far, then it would seem like that would be effective in combination with distancing.

How often is “often”? Under what circumstances were they not masking? How many layers of cloth did their mask have? What type of fabric was it made of? Were they wearing an actual mask or were they using neck gaiters/bandanas/other cloth coverings? Not all cloth masks are equal. Additionally, were they observing social distancing at home or were they inviting friends/family over or going to other people’s homes to visit?
And also, did they even know how to wear a mask?! I saw probably over half of the people in the local grocery store who were "masked" and they had the mask not covering their nose or they would inexplicably pull the mask down to do things like read the back of a cereal box (?!?!?!?!).

And I think your point about at home behavior is really important. I had one student whose family was being "really careful" . . . .except for the part where they had "all of mom's friends over for a party!". Most of the people I know who were infected got it from someone who came into their home and they weren't masking in the house. (For example, my co-worker got it from her son and/or daughter-in-law.)

I also think that some people were just in this weird self-denial about their own behaviors. Like my sister's friend who said that she and her husband weren't going anywhere except for "essential" shopping/errands. She told my sister this over the phone while she and her husband were at a brewery.



And I think your point about at home behavior is really important. I had one student whose family was being "really careful" . . . .except for the part where they had "all of mom's friends over for a party!". Most of the people I know who were infected got it from someone who came into their home and they weren't masking in the house. (For example, my co-worker got it from her son and/or daughter-in-law.)
Yeah my coworker wore her mask at work and when she went out shopping, but kept spending time around her ex-boyfriend's family (mainly because she and her ex have a child together and her ex's mom babysat while she was at work). Everyone in her ex's family came down with Covid and she caught it and spread it to her family.

I also think that some people were just in this weird self-denial about their own behaviors. Like my sister's friend who said that she and her husband weren't going anywhere except for "essential" shopping/errands. She told my sister this over the phone while she and her husband were at a brewery.
My dad's kind of this way, too. He kept saying how scared he was of catching it due to his age, diabetes, and other health problems and swore he only went out when absolutely necessary... But the man refuses to pass up a bargain on groceries and was making several trips each week and going to multiple stores to get the best sales and denied it when I called him out on it. Fortunately, he hasn't gotten sick and has been otherwise very careful, but it really worried me before he got vaccinated.



You said a lot of “avid” mask wearers got Covid. What does that even mean?



And your source used a vague multiple choice survey with no room for nuance or clarification. How often is “often”? Under what circumstances were they not masking? How many layers of cloth did their mask have? What type of fabric was it made of? Were they wearing an actual mask or were they using neck gaiters/bandanas/other cloth coverings? Not all cloth masks are equal. Additionally, were they observing social distancing at home or were they inviting friends/family over or going to other people’s homes to visit?

I also like how you completely ignored Yoda’s question about how much evidence would be enough.
Hi Vick,

I would describe an avid mask wearer as someone who wears it regularly and in all the situations prescribed or advised by the experts (although I don't know if there are any experts on masks when it comes to viral spread since much of the advice has been conflicting).

Basically, an avid mask wearer would be someone who'd have a mask on whenever in the presence or nearness of others, or anyone who'd go beyond those protocols such as those who wear a mask when walking alone outdoors, while driving alone, etc.

I agree with you that there are hundreds of variables involved in assessing the efficacy of masks as a significant mitigating measure.

I've also mentioned social distancing as a mitigating measure - as to Takoma's point - yes any combination of mitigating measures has got to be better than any single measure.

As to Chris's question - I'm not sure I understand it. More evidence is always better. However the "evidence" with masks seems very variable and non-concise. It seems to depend a lot on the source of who is reporting the evidence or compiling the statistics - which brings us back into the area of the politicization of masks.

Who should we believe when the statistics are still being debated? Politicians who refuse to follow their own mandates? Medical specialists who keep changing their advice or tweak it for whatever party wins an election?



My dad's kind of this way, too. He kept saying how scared he was of catching it due to his age, diabetes, and other health problems and swore he only went out when absolutely necessary... But the man refuses to pass up a bargain on groceries and was making several trips each week and going to multiple stores to get the best sales and denied it when I called him out on it. Fortunately, he hasn't gotten sick and has been otherwise very careful, but it really worried me before he got vaccinated.
YES! I was horrified when I found out my dad was going to two different stores for groceries (one for stuff like toilet paper, another because it had better produce). I even offered to shop for them. But honestly, I think that shopping was an excuse to get out of the house and that was a big driver of the behavior.

I have been going to a store that is twice as far away as my regular store, just because the further away store enforces masking and the people who shop there actually know how to wear a mask.

I think that this pandemic has been such a hard hit because so much of my anxiety has come from not being able to control how other people are behaving and the science is still changing in terms of understanding risk in a concrete way. For example, there are no more mask mandates where I live. But I also know someone whose father was just diagnosed with COVID despite having had the J&J vaccine. A man came to service my HVAC system, and he told me he was home sick with COVID for 3 weeks and that it's the worst he's ever been sick in his life. I am going unmasked around my family (who are all vaccinated and are pretty cautious when out and about), but continuing to mask in public. And I feel like I just don't know right now if continuing to mask (I am vaccinated) is overkill or just prudent behavior.



I am going unmasked around my family (who are all vaccinated and are pretty cautious when out and about), but continuing to mask in public. And I feel like I just don't know right now if continuing to mask (I am vaccinated) is overkill or just prudent behavior.
It’s prudent. Being vaccinated means you’re much less likely to become seriously ill or die from Covid, but it doesn’t mean you won’t still get sick.

I’ve started spending some time with friends since getting vaccinated, but they’re fully vaccinated as well and so far it’s just been spending time with them at their homes. Before that, I only spent time with one friend who is also a coworker (the nature of my job means working from home was never an option). We were around each other most days anyway so I saw no reason to keep distance from her and we stuck to things like taking walks together or picking up food and eating in her car or outside somewhere away from other people.

Things are opening back up now and I’m planning to start getting back to some of the things I used to do - the Monterey Bay Aquarium has reopened, the Renaissance Faire is coming soon, and one of my favorite musicians has announced a tour - but I’m also really apprehensive about being around a lot of people again. We’ll see if I actually go through with it all. I will most definitely be wearing a mask and packing lots of hand sanitizer if I do.



Rules, have you forgotten about all the mayors, governors, Congresspeople, etc. who called for and enforced mask mandates upon the public, then were caught not following their own mandates themselves?
Nope I haven't forgotten about that. But that's not a case of politicizing. It's a case of human nature. Humans often say one thing and do another, I.E. they are hypocrites OR dumbasses.



Now consider someone inhales that cloud of vapor that you just breathed out through your mask and you are carrying virus. (Will it contain enough viral load to infect? That's debatable
My understanding is that it's not that debatable, unless we're using the "can be" threshold again.

"I can see my breath" may seem compelling at first, because it's visual and all that, but I'm not sure it's significant here. I'll bet it's also highly dependent on what kind of mask you're wearing. I've got a few, some a lot safer than others. You're just thinking of the simple, cheap light blue surgical-style ones, I assume.

I think I can answer this one rather concisely - we know for a fact that the virus itself varies from person to person. Some people can get a full load and have no symptoms, others can get minor or even weird symptoms, others can wear two masks for weeks then die from the virus. Children rarely get it and the latest studies suggest they don't spread it, young people seem more resistant, comorbidities can advance it quickly... there seem to be an endless list of variables that can protect against it or make one far more susceptible.
Wait, that's not the same thing. "Some people react differently to the virus" has no relationship to the physics of virus contraction. You might as well be circumspect about being shot in the head because people sometimes live through it.

And, again, the threshold for evidence should be preponderance, not "can I find edge cases that let me believe whatever?"



As to Chris's question - I'm not sure I understand it. More evidence is always better. However the "evidence" with masks seems very variable and non-concise.
I don't think it is. I specifically asked in my last post whether your reference to "the statistics" consisted of that one self-reported survey you posted earlier, but you didn't respond. You also didn't respond when I asked you how much evidence I would have to provide showing differently to be believed. So I guess I'll ask again, same thing, about this reference to the evidence being "very variable."

See, a lot of times people treat evidence/numbers/polls/whatever like a standoff: they've got theirs pointed at me, so all I need to do is find something to point back at them so that we've neutralized each other, and I can believe what I want. But that, of course, is not how evidence works (and nobody with that posture will ever find the truth, except by accident).

Who should we believe when the statistics are still being debated?
See, now you're treating it as established that the "statistics are still being debated." Again, based on what? The link you posted earlier? This is a common rhetorical maneuver, too: cite any dissenting evidence and then make vague references to "controversy" or "debate." Debate something, then say it's being debated! Granted with a very shallow definition of "debate." Because "here's my link, no I don't want to really talk about or defend it" is not exactly debate.

The goal of all these maneuvers is to muddy the waters enough to make two things seem roughly equal in probability, even while they have very different levels of evidence to support them.

Politicians who refuse to follow their own mandates? Medical specialists who keep changing their advice or tweak it for whatever party wins an election?
Easy: you ignore hypocrisy for purposes of scientific evaluation, because it has no bearing on it, and therefore no bearing on this discussion.

Hypocrisy only matters in situations where you have no means of examining the evidence yourself (and thus need to simply trust someone), or possibly as an anecdote to argue that a prescribed behavior is not plausible.