US considers cloth face masks for the public(bbc.com)
bbc.com
US considers cloth face masks for the public
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52126183
57 comments
I understand the need to preserve masks and respirators for medical personnel, but did the talking point earlier really need to be they provide no benefit? It feels like now the population has been taught to not wear masks and it’ll be an uphill battle to reverse that.
Agreed. It's kind of fascinating that they said masks had "no benefit" but claimed that medical professionals had a dire need for masks.
Speculation here, but I think if everyone had worn face coverings (i.e. scarves or even masks) early on, we wouldn't have as many cases in the US today. Combined with social distancing, we could have even possibly flattened the curve.
edits: grammar
Speculation here, but I think if everyone had worn face coverings (i.e. scarves or even masks) early on, we wouldn't have as many cases in the US today. Combined with social distancing, we could have even possibly flattened the curve.
edits: grammar
In the early i days I saw that the dire need was for specific masks, eg the n95. And that surgical masks weren’t affective for them but they took what they could get.
And Florida just issued their shelter in place - this country’s hate of science doomed it to the number of cases it was going to get regardless.
And Florida just issued their shelter in place - this country’s hate of science doomed it to the number of cases it was going to get regardless.
Can you supply a link that substantiates that? Other than Communist China making that claim? Please keep in mind CC would love to see the current admin discredited. It's naive to believe that everyone has put down their propaganda weapons. Not going to happen.
I specified above that this is personal speculation. And no, I'm not a CCP shill, I'm a US college student who would very much like to get the full experience I paid for.
[deleted]
Pro-mask evidence links: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/frkfit/stealth_tra...
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for a source on. That people have claimed masks don't help? The idea appears to be widespread so I assume it must have been said multiple times. Here is a famous one https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...
My understanding that you need N95 mask to protect yourself.
To protect others from you however, you probably just need to make sure you don't spit, and don't touch your face. A cloth mask could help with both. Gloves may also help (having something on your hand can remind you not to touch your face).
Doctors & other exposed personnel need masks to protect themselves. The rest of us likely mostly need to protect them from us.
(Totally not a doctor, citation needed.)
To protect others from you however, you probably just need to make sure you don't spit, and don't touch your face. A cloth mask could help with both. Gloves may also help (having something on your hand can remind you not to touch your face).
Doctors & other exposed personnel need masks to protect themselves. The rest of us likely mostly need to protect them from us.
(Totally not a doctor, citation needed.)
If by spit you mean sneeze or cough, then yes. If you're potentially contagious, wearing a mask helps prevent you from spraying liquid droplets in the air and infecting others. It's not perfect, but it's something. And any since any of us could be a carrier currently and there's no sufficient tests to find out, the best things we could do in order are 1) stay home and quarantine, 2) wear masks and sanitize our hands whenever we go out. Both for the sake of not catching it, and for the sake of not spreading it.
> If by spit you mean sneeze or cough,
And talking. We sometimes throw droplets with percussives such as P or T.
And talking. We sometimes throw droplets with percussives such as P or T.
That’s my understanding as well, but that to me also means we should be telling people wearing masks helps; either it protects the wearer or those around the wearer. In either case we have less spread, which is the goal.
If we have a shortage of masks, either surgical or n95 respirators there are other things we can do to prioritize who gets them. I just don’t think lying / misleading the public about their effectiveness is the way to do it.
If we have a shortage of masks, either surgical or n95 respirators there are other things we can do to prioritize who gets them. I just don’t think lying / misleading the public about their effectiveness is the way to do it.
Not only taught to not wear masks but also taught to distrust what officials say. And we really didn’t need that when there are plenty of crackpot theories going around already (Coronavirus is a conspiracy, it’s triggered by 5G, vaccines are bad, etc)
I feel this was a really really bad move which will result in otherwise avoidable deaths from people arguing they shouldn’t do what officials say because they lied about such an important issue before.
I feel this was a really really bad move which will result in otherwise avoidable deaths from people arguing they shouldn’t do what officials say because they lied about such an important issue before.
People needed to be indoors and locked down before they could be told masks work and should be homemade. Coming out and saying they work and are critical to prevent spread would have resulted in videos much scarier than someone fighting an old woman for toilet paper.
> It feels like now the population has been taught to not wear masks and it’ll be an uphill battle to reverse that.
No masks is already the US status quo. In the same way propaganda told people not to buy them, they will be told to wear them and how to make them at home. It’s a pretty easy reversal when the message is demanded to be broadcast through all mediums.
> It feels like now the population has been taught to not wear masks and it’ll be an uphill battle to reverse that.
No masks is already the US status quo. In the same way propaganda told people not to buy them, they will be told to wear them and how to make them at home. It’s a pretty easy reversal when the message is demanded to be broadcast through all mediums.
Agreed. This could likely be accomplished with a single tweet even. We might have 40% compliance overnight.
Why is this not being broadcast from all possible media outlets? “Stay at home. If you just absolutely go out, wear a mask.” It’s really that simple.
Why is this not being broadcast from all possible media outlets? “Stay at home. If you just absolutely go out, wear a mask.” It’s really that simple.
It will be, but you need the whole nation on lockdown before the national zeitgeist can shift that drastically. Some states just began their shelter in place today (for example Florida and Georgia).
It has been at least a week since that "earlier talking point" has been part of the public discourse enough to justify a meta-discourse about it. It's almost as though some people (or "people") are determined to keep banging that drum as long as it helps to sow division and undermine WHO/CDC. The focus among reasonable people is and mostly always was about how to ensure that high-quality masks and other PPE are available to those who are most at risk. How about if we focus on that?
The undermining wasn’t done by the “people” in this case, it was done by the authorities putting out contradictory and misleading information. How would the public go about evaluating what information to trust now? Should they wear masks or not? Or just go with the flavor of the day?
Like I said before I understand the need to prioritize, but there’s other ways to do that. Redirecting supply to medical facilities etc, which is already being done. Most people can’t even buy n95 respirators now even if they want to. No need to lie about their effectiveness in preventing spread.
Like I said before I understand the need to prioritize, but there’s other ways to do that. Redirecting supply to medical facilities etc, which is already being done. Most people can’t even buy n95 respirators now even if they want to. No need to lie about their effectiveness in preventing spread.
If you want people to take experts seriously (and make huge personal sacrifices based on their recommendations), then there’s going to have to be some reflection of how much bad advice and prognostication was put out early on in this thing. Sweeping it under the rug or pretending it didn’t happen isn’t going to help.
Oh, there will definitely have to be a lot of that, but "CDC can't be trusted ever again" is just another kind of disinformation we'll be studying. And speaking of what's not helpful, I think derailing discussion of current evidence and courses of action fits into that category. "Who said what when" might be important but it's not urgent. It can be deferred while we deal with the urgent.
tragic and idiotic decision to lie.
Tragic, yes. But idiotic would be trivializing that US is in cold war with China. Attacking the country while building down national defense (CDC) was idiotic.
The reality is most people would not correctly fit a n95, and an improperly fit n95 would only provide marginal benefit.
Even in article, we are talking cloth face masks. That will provide even less marginal protection to the wearer from contracting the virus. But it will reduce the spread from an infected person. The goal isn't to wear a mask to protect yourself, the goal is to not spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier
It's not fruitful to worry about a hypothetical. I worry more about asking many Americans to do something they perceive as altruistic.
edit: it is rude to call something FUD if it isn't. I didn't say no benefit, I said marginal. And I think everyone greater risk in a general healthcare systemic collapse, which is what is on the table. If you weigh all the risks, until there are enough for all medical purposes they should go to medical wearers. Then it should be triaged by vulnerability. This seems really common sense. And obviously, a homemade cloth mask, scarf, or t-shirt when forced into a situation around other people is basic common sense, and I didn't feel the need to say it. That's why I'm talking about N95s, not masks, and certainly not cloth masks that are homemade.
edit: downvotes are frustrating. I am almost restating the article verbatim to correct misunderstandings in the comments here about what and why is being suggested.
However, on Wednesday, Dr Adams told Good Morning America that the CDC had been asked to review its guidelines on masks, because "we've learned there's a fair amount of asymptomatic spread" - although he stressed that medical masks should still be left to health care professionals who needed them most.
and
However, more and more health experts now say there are benefits.
They argue that the public use of masks can primarily help by preventing asymptomatic patients - people who have been infected with Covid-19 but are not aware, and not displaying any symptoms - from unknowingly spreading the virus to others.
edit: check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22752501 for resources that say indicate otherwise on mask wearing even benefiting the wearer. Don't be an antisocial asshole and buy or wear N95s and give them to healthcare workers, who face a much higher viral loads than you, until supply constraints are resolved.
Even in article, we are talking cloth face masks. That will provide even less marginal protection to the wearer from contracting the virus. But it will reduce the spread from an infected person. The goal isn't to wear a mask to protect yourself, the goal is to not spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier
It's not fruitful to worry about a hypothetical. I worry more about asking many Americans to do something they perceive as altruistic.
edit: it is rude to call something FUD if it isn't. I didn't say no benefit, I said marginal. And I think everyone greater risk in a general healthcare systemic collapse, which is what is on the table. If you weigh all the risks, until there are enough for all medical purposes they should go to medical wearers. Then it should be triaged by vulnerability. This seems really common sense. And obviously, a homemade cloth mask, scarf, or t-shirt when forced into a situation around other people is basic common sense, and I didn't feel the need to say it. That's why I'm talking about N95s, not masks, and certainly not cloth masks that are homemade.
edit: downvotes are frustrating. I am almost restating the article verbatim to correct misunderstandings in the comments here about what and why is being suggested.
However, on Wednesday, Dr Adams told Good Morning America that the CDC had been asked to review its guidelines on masks, because "we've learned there's a fair amount of asymptomatic spread" - although he stressed that medical masks should still be left to health care professionals who needed them most.
and
However, more and more health experts now say there are benefits.
They argue that the public use of masks can primarily help by preventing asymptomatic patients - people who have been infected with Covid-19 but are not aware, and not displaying any symptoms - from unknowingly spreading the virus to others.
edit: check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22752501 for resources that say indicate otherwise on mask wearing even benefiting the wearer. Don't be an antisocial asshole and buy or wear N95s and give them to healthcare workers, who face a much higher viral loads than you, until supply constraints are resolved.
> The reality is most people would not correctly fit a n95, and an improperly fit n95 would only provide marginal benefit.
Marginal > none
> Even in article, we are talking cloth face masks. That will provide even less marginal protection to the wearer from contracting the virus. But it will reduce the spread of an infected person. The goal isn't to wear a mask to protect yourself, the goal is to not spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier
Not true, getting a lower dose of the virus initially gives your body more time to develop antibodies.
Marginal > none
> Even in article, we are talking cloth face masks. That will provide even less marginal protection to the wearer from contracting the virus. But it will reduce the spread of an infected person. The goal isn't to wear a mask to protect yourself, the goal is to not spread the virus as an asymptomatic carrier
Not true, getting a lower dose of the virus initially gives your body more time to develop antibodies.
Yes, viral load is important. As an uninfected person wearing a cloth mask you may still inhale droplets, but maybe fewer big ones. The bigger improvement is from a droplet being trapped or exhaled droplets traveling less distance because of the carrier was wearing a mask. You are correct on your critiques of what I wrote, but if everyone wears a surgical mask it's great and the reason is reducing overall transmission among populations.
> Not true, getting a lower dose of the virus initially gives your body more time to develop antibodies.
Can you substantiate that claim with any evidence, preferably by citing published articles? I'm not disagreeing, I just wasn't able to find any myself.
Can you substantiate that claim with any evidence, preferably by citing published articles? I'm not disagreeing, I just wasn't able to find any myself.
Video of Rishi Desai, MD, MPH, Chief Medical Officer at Osmosis, Infectious Disease Physician talking about large/small inoculant [0]
And From CEBM [1]:
> The initial dose of virus and the amount of virus an individual has at any one time might worsen the severity of COVID 19 disease. Viral load is a measure of the number of viral particles present in an individual. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. might worsen outcomes, and data from China suggests the viral load is higher in patients [2] with more severe disease. The amount of virus exposure at the start of infection – the infectious dose – may increase the severity of the illness and is also. linked to a higher viral load
[0] https://youtu.be/cFB_C2ieW5I?t=771
[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
And From CEBM [1]:
> The initial dose of virus and the amount of virus an individual has at any one time might worsen the severity of COVID 19 disease. Viral load is a measure of the number of viral particles present in an individual. Higher SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. might worsen outcomes, and data from China suggests the viral load is higher in patients [2] with more severe disease. The amount of virus exposure at the start of infection – the infectious dose – may increase the severity of the illness and is also. linked to a higher viral load
[0] https://youtu.be/cFB_C2ieW5I?t=771
[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-the-...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
That's an parroting FUD to arrogantly and dismissively rationalize removing means of protection from individuals.
There are people who can fit them properly. Use or misuse is a personal responsibility, like most things in life.
There are people who can fit them properly. Use or misuse is a personal responsibility, like most things in life.
>There are people who can fit them properly.
In my experience (as a peon employed by target) about 10% of people are wearing the correct mask (assuming they're trying to protect themselves) and appear to have it fitted properly. (CVS pharmacy people aren't included in that number because they probably received training on how to wear their masks.)
In my experience (as a peon employed by target) about 10% of people are wearing the correct mask (assuming they're trying to protect themselves) and appear to have it fitted properly. (CVS pharmacy people aren't included in that number because they probably received training on how to wear their masks.)
A study of airplane travelers showed benefits from wearing a facemask, even for the wearer. A couple days ago here on HN?
Here's the paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...
Protection achieved by wearing facemasks of any kind was between 90% and 100%.
Here's the paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...
Protection achieved by wearing facemasks of any kind was between 90% and 100%.
Edit your post with the link, if you can? I would love to read it. I will correct my comment accordingly.
research has been done that cloth masks provide more than marginal benefits. virus particles don't travel often by themselves, but on top of droplets which most non n95 masks can catch.
Not at all. Just got back from two different local supermarkets. I didn't wear a mask. I was easily in the minority.
If the CDC said to drink your own pee, the majority of ppl wouldn't hesitate.
If the CDC said to drink your own pee, the majority of ppl wouldn't hesitate.
Treating the populace like the Radium Girls who were told it was "safe" and ended-up painting their nails, skin and teeth with a deadly substance and dying horrible deaths from it.
If you go out into public you should be wearing a face mask, period.
You want 3 easy things a mask can help with?
1. Not being able to put your hands into your nose/mouth and remind you to not touch your face
2. Prevent the spread if you are asymptomatic but have it
3. Increase the chance you get a "low dose" even if you do get it (leading to a better outcome for you)
These things matter and will save lives. Even a cloth/homemade mask helps. The CDC lied when they said it didn't and they lied because they knew there weren't enough masks but in doing so they eroded public trust so when they finally do get around to asking people to wear a mask there will be those that won't now. Same way calling it "just the flu" continues to be parroted by people. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
You want 3 easy things a mask can help with?
1. Not being able to put your hands into your nose/mouth and remind you to not touch your face
2. Prevent the spread if you are asymptomatic but have it
3. Increase the chance you get a "low dose" even if you do get it (leading to a better outcome for you)
These things matter and will save lives. Even a cloth/homemade mask helps. The CDC lied when they said it didn't and they lied because they knew there weren't enough masks but in doing so they eroded public trust so when they finally do get around to asking people to wear a mask there will be those that won't now. Same way calling it "just the flu" continues to be parroted by people. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The most effective thing you can do is to stay home. Wearing a mask might help, but it may not. There isn't a good study on it.
Medicine has a history of shoddy study design and outright quackery, so without a good RCT, medically trained professionals are loath to prescribe some behavior.
There are studies that show how bad people are at wearing masks.
As for masks effectiveness, it's complicated. They might help filter particles, or prevent the particles you exhale from going/staying airborne. But you may also touch your face more and in more dangerous ways when you're wearing a mask.
There's also a very real risk of moral hazard, but people (see above) don't know the relative risks of social behavior vs masks. If people feel safe b/c they're wearing a mask, that's also self-defeating.
Medicine has a history of shoddy study design and outright quackery, so without a good RCT, medically trained professionals are loath to prescribe some behavior.
There are studies that show how bad people are at wearing masks.
As for masks effectiveness, it's complicated. They might help filter particles, or prevent the particles you exhale from going/staying airborne. But you may also touch your face more and in more dangerous ways when you're wearing a mask.
There's also a very real risk of moral hazard, but people (see above) don't know the relative risks of social behavior vs masks. If people feel safe b/c they're wearing a mask, that's also self-defeating.
> There isn't a good study on it.
Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve?
> But you may also touch your face more and in more dangerous ways when you're wearing a mask.
This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose.
> If people feel safe b/c they're wearing a mask, that's also self-defeating.
Even if it makes them safer?
I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them?
Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve?
> But you may also touch your face more and in more dangerous ways when you're wearing a mask.
This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose.
> If people feel safe b/c they're wearing a mask, that's also self-defeating.
Even if it makes them safer?
I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them?
> Other than countries that are currently wearing masks and are flattening the curve?
Are there countries that are effectively flattening the curve without using masks?
> This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose.
It either gets in because you touch those places, or because you breathed in an aerosolized form through those places. (I'm assuming you breathe through your face) If a mask causes you to to aerosolize more, or contaminate your hands, then it isn't making you as safe as you thought.
> Even if it makes them safer?
Again, what's the evidence for this? A DOI would be sufficient.
> I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them?
We don't know if masks help regular people. Normal people haven't been fitted or trained, and that means they are overwhelmingly likely to wear them incorrectly.
Again, we're back to moral hazard, only worse, because you aren't as protected as you thought. Bad protection can be worse than no protection, because it leads to a net increase in risk. For example (all numbers are made up) if you go out twice as often once you've got a mask, but the mask only reduces your risk of exposure by 40%, then yes, the mask has a protective effect, but you wearing the mask leads to a net increase in risk. You would have been better off not wearing the mask, and behaving more cautiously.
Are there countries that are effectively flattening the curve without using masks?
> This is simply a terrible argument for a number of reasons, first and foremost: you do not get COVID-19 from touching your face. It has to get in through the mouth or nose.
It either gets in because you touch those places, or because you breathed in an aerosolized form through those places. (I'm assuming you breathe through your face) If a mask causes you to to aerosolize more, or contaminate your hands, then it isn't making you as safe as you thought.
> Even if it makes them safer?
Again, what's the evidence for this? A DOI would be sufficient.
> I can't even deal with people that want to say "we don't know if masks help" then why are doctors and nurses wearing them?
We don't know if masks help regular people. Normal people haven't been fitted or trained, and that means they are overwhelmingly likely to wear them incorrectly.
Again, we're back to moral hazard, only worse, because you aren't as protected as you thought. Bad protection can be worse than no protection, because it leads to a net increase in risk. For example (all numbers are made up) if you go out twice as often once you've got a mask, but the mask only reduces your risk of exposure by 40%, then yes, the mask has a protective effect, but you wearing the mask leads to a net increase in risk. You would have been better off not wearing the mask, and behaving more cautiously.
Yes, but people do need to do things like buy food. That requires either going out yourself or hiring someone to deliver it. Either way whoever is out should be wearing a mask.
100% agree but even a T-Shirt or bandanna is preferable to going out with nothing.
Or it can work the opposite way and everyone wearing masks will remind people that things aren't normal and they should stay at home.
RELATED: “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks” — which I recommend anyone review before expressing a non-scientific based opinion:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648603
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22648603
[deleted]
Cloth doesn’t provide any protection for the wearer but “could” hold on to the wearer’s virus thus slowing the spread. Id say it’s embarassinng that we came to this but it can’t hurt though and may have some effect after all. I think the fashion industry will go into a weird direction, hijabs are the new thing
Cloth can still provide some protection. A mask made from a cotton blend t-shirt can be ~70% effective at filtering a virus from droplets in the air. (See this study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...)
I've made this "single-serving site" to share with friends and family who aren't convinced yet: https://shouldiwearafacemask.com/
I've made this "single-serving site" to share with friends and family who aren't convinced yet: https://shouldiwearafacemask.com/
Absolutely, I expressed myself poorly, they do provide _some_ protection and if everyone wore them it would be even more effective. But, on the other hand, it would also provide a false sense of safety and being followed by lessening the need for self isolation. But we shouldn't resort to such things, where are the real safety masks? Its hard not to get worried about how so unprepared we are and and in an eventual case of other imminent emergencies and crises we might have even worse outcome. We should think more often about how we impact our environment and how the weather has been changing and affecting everything around us. Stay safe
awesome. I'm sending this to my partner who has been apathetic about this whole thing.
It does provide protection to the wearer, if everyone does it. If all the people around them are wearing them and one of those people is infected, the wearer is less likely to catch it.
Trying to fit it into a altruistic or selfish category is a false dichotomy. The same for obeying stay at home orders. Just because a benefit is indirect (herd immunity benefit of universal vaccination, reducing r0 in a population from behavioral changes) doesn't mean it's not a benefit.
Trying to fit it into a altruistic or selfish category is a false dichotomy. The same for obeying stay at home orders. Just because a benefit is indirect (herd immunity benefit of universal vaccination, reducing r0 in a population from behavioral changes) doesn't mean it's not a benefit.
If it helps at all catching the cough and sneeze aerosols then it has to help. A few layers of cotton would probably contain a goodly portion.
I think you meant burqa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa
My mistke, I actuallty niquab, where only the eyes are visible.
The maker response in Baltimore includes hand sewn (and washable) face masks, https://www.flattenthecurvebaltimore.com/shop. I’ve been 3D printing face shield parts for the same effort.
Should have a day 1 decision. I hope we are better prepared next time.
doggodad(1)