Study shows N95 masks near-perfect at blocking escape of airborne Covid-19(sph.umd.edu)
sph.umd.edu
Study shows N95 masks near-perfect at blocking escape of airborne Covid-19
https://sph.umd.edu/news/study-shows-n95-masks-near-perfect-blocking-escape-airborne-covid-19
132 comments
That’s because the U.S. population was strongly against masks. In the beginning the US public was strongly in favor of the vaccines. In fact the complaints were around the delay in vaccine availability and the way the rich and powerful could access them earlier.
It was only in late 2021 where certain people realized vaccine skepticism was lucrative and the Republicans needed something to rile up their base for the upcoming elections did vaccine skepticism become a thing.
It was only in late 2021 where certain people realized vaccine skepticism was lucrative and the Republicans needed something to rile up their base for the upcoming elections did vaccine skepticism become a thing.
You mixed up parties a bit.
Democrats were criticising Trump for rushing the vaccine, and flaming vaccine scepticism, helped by mainstream media.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2671R8/ September 17, 20201
Democrat Biden warns against rushing out coronavirus vaccine, says Trump cannot be trusted
Democrats were criticising Trump for rushing the vaccine, and flaming vaccine scepticism, helped by mainstream media.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2671R8/ September 17, 20201
Democrat Biden warns against rushing out coronavirus vaccine, says Trump cannot be trusted
> and flaming vaccine scepticism
Not exactly.
> Biden, who leads the president in national opinion polls, has questioned whether Trump is pressuring agencies like the FDA to sign off on a vaccine to boost his re-election prospects. At the same time, Biden has been careful to say he wants to see a safe vaccine as soon as possible.
> "There has to be total transparency, so scientists outside the government know what is being approved," Biden said. "I’m saying, trust the scientist."
"Trust the scientist" != "flaming vaccine skepticism"
Not exactly.
> Biden, who leads the president in national opinion polls, has questioned whether Trump is pressuring agencies like the FDA to sign off on a vaccine to boost his re-election prospects. At the same time, Biden has been careful to say he wants to see a safe vaccine as soon as possible.
> "There has to be total transparency, so scientists outside the government know what is being approved," Biden said. "I’m saying, trust the scientist."
"Trust the scientist" != "flaming vaccine skepticism"
It’s truly insane that vaccine deniers are now voting for Trump, when he was the one to take credit for them in the first place (and perhaps with some small justification!)
These people have been exposed to too much PFAS or something. It's messed up their logical thinking capabilities.
You know what else happened in late 2021? Vaccine mandates in the US (and Canada).
In the US, there were two - the first, via OSHA, affected all employers with > 100 employees. Employees would need to be vaccinated or tested weekly and required to wear a mask. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The second, via CMMS required vaccinations for all health care employees if Medicare or Medicaid money is involved. SCOTUS allowed that one.
In the US, there were two - the first, via OSHA, affected all employers with > 100 employees. Employees would need to be vaccinated or tested weekly and required to wear a mask. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The second, via CMMS required vaccinations for all health care employees if Medicare or Medicaid money is involved. SCOTUS allowed that one.
On any issue some percent of the population will be contrarian. This is why there's much less resistance if policies are heavily encouraged instead of trying to punish dissenters. At the point where x issue becomes part of the culture war concensus becomes impossible.
> It was only in late 2021 where certain people realized vaccine skepticism was lucrative and the Republicans needed something to rile up their base for the upcoming elections did vaccine skepticism become a thing.
This is revisionist history. I remember many Democrats being staunchly anti-"Trump's rushed vaccine" and it was only when their party came into power did they turn into human pincushions nearly overnight, "believing in science" and not being able to get enough jabs into them.
The vaccines, of course, were one and the same.
This is revisionist history. I remember many Democrats being staunchly anti-"Trump's rushed vaccine" and it was only when their party came into power did they turn into human pincushions nearly overnight, "believing in science" and not being able to get enough jabs into them.
The vaccines, of course, were one and the same.
Could you imagine how different things would have turned out if the vaccine was ready while Trump was still in office?
The right wing media outlets would be praising it and claiming that it was everyone's patriotic duty to get vaccinated.
The left wing media outlets would be pushing out articles and documentaries about how vaccine compliance is rooted in implicit white supremacy.
The right wing media outlets would be praising it and claiming that it was everyone's patriotic duty to get vaccinated.
The left wing media outlets would be pushing out articles and documentaries about how vaccine compliance is rooted in implicit white supremacy.
> The left wing media outlets would be pushing out articles and documentaries about how vaccine compliance is rooted in implicit white supremacy.
In 2013, 38% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans supported Obama's missile strikes on Syria. In 2017, 37% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported Trump's missile strikes on Syria.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same...
The political parties aren't simplistic mirror images of each other. The Republicans are the ones that really flip mindlessly based on whoever is in power (and then once their guy is no longer in power -- like Bush -- they turn on him years later and forget they ever supported those policies at the time).
In 2013, 38% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans supported Obama's missile strikes on Syria. In 2017, 37% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported Trump's missile strikes on Syria.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same...
The political parties aren't simplistic mirror images of each other. The Republicans are the ones that really flip mindlessly based on whoever is in power (and then once their guy is no longer in power -- like Bush -- they turn on him years later and forget they ever supported those policies at the time).
yes, i remember this:
https://time.com/5887777/rushed-vaccine-democrats-republican...
https://time.com/5887777/rushed-vaccine-democrats-republican...
Thank you for finding this!
> Unsurprisingly, the degree to which Americans are concerned about the President’s influence rushing the vaccine process falls along political lines. About 85% of Democrats and 61% of independents said they were concerned, compared to 35% of Republicans, according to the Kaiser poll.
> Unsurprisingly, the degree to which Americans are concerned about the President’s influence rushing the vaccine process falls along political lines. About 85% of Democrats and 61% of independents said they were concerned, compared to 35% of Republicans, according to the Kaiser poll.
This doesn't really match up with your original message. The issues raised on dem side were usually about the process/promises of rushing it, not any the vaccine itself. The specific worry is mentioned at the end of the article and it did come true - the myth of untested vaccine is still alive.
There's a big difference between anti-"Trump's rushed vaccine" and anti-"Trump rushing vaccine".
There's a big difference between anti-"Trump's rushed vaccine" and anti-"Trump rushing vaccine".
And yet that seems to have changed since the article referenced above was published.
> After May 1, 2021, when vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate gap between Republican and Democratic voters widened from -0.9 percentage point (95% PI, -2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis; the excess death rate among Republican voters was 43% higher than the excess death rate among Democratic voters. The gap in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters was larger in counties with lower vaccination rates and was primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37486680/
> After May 1, 2021, when vaccines were available to all adults, the excess death rate gap between Republican and Democratic voters widened from -0.9 percentage point (95% PI, -2.5 to 0.3 percentage points) to 7.7 percentage points (95% PI, 6.0-9.3 percentage points) in the adjusted analysis; the excess death rate among Republican voters was 43% higher than the excess death rate among Democratic voters. The gap in excess death rates between Republican and Democratic voters was larger in counties with lower vaccination rates and was primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37486680/
They were against the obvious (and transparent) attempts to push the vaccine out before the election as some sort of political ploy - not the vaccine itself. Nearly everyone said they'd trust it if the FDA was left to their regular approval process. Which is a shame too, there was good reason to accelerate the approval but the admin messaging was focused purely on the political rather than health benefits of doing so.
The regular approval process takes years. We'd still be waiting for it. Yet everyone is in here splitting hairs over what amounted to a few weeks. I know healthcare workers that got the shot in December, the election having been in November.
So if the people that literally couldn't wait to get their shot, got it 4 weeks earlier, that would have been deemed rushed and too early to be safe? But four weeks later it's perfectly safe?
No, this is about political tribalism and not actual vaccine safety.
So if the people that literally couldn't wait to get their shot, got it 4 weeks earlier, that would have been deemed rushed and too early to be safe? But four weeks later it's perfectly safe?
No, this is about political tribalism and not actual vaccine safety.
> The regular approval process takes years. We'd still be waiting for it. Yet everyone is in here splitting hairs over what amounted to a few weeks.
This isn't remotely true - it was on the expedited path and was always forecast to be ready in Q4 2020 or Q1 2021. The "few weeks" was whether they would be approved before the election or after it - which had clear and obvious political implications. Rather than resting on the laurels of having created Warp Speed and helped usher the the vaccine through development and approvals in under a year, they were leaning on the science teams to approve it to improve his election prospects. There were tons of articles in real time about the entire debacle;
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/trump-fda-coronaviru...
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-mark-m...
This isn't remotely true - it was on the expedited path and was always forecast to be ready in Q4 2020 or Q1 2021. The "few weeks" was whether they would be approved before the election or after it - which had clear and obvious political implications. Rather than resting on the laurels of having created Warp Speed and helped usher the the vaccine through development and approvals in under a year, they were leaning on the science teams to approve it to improve his election prospects. There were tons of articles in real time about the entire debacle;
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/trump-fda-coronaviru...
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-mark-m...
Well yeah, but that’s mostly because the vaccine wasn’t approved until after their party came into power after the 2020 election, despite Trump’s attempts to rush out a vaccine before the election.
Maybe it has something to do with the the medical factors in government, like Dr Fauci telling us not to wear masks. It maybe it was all if the prior research that shows that masks fit the last person were mostly ineffective.
I guess Big Pharma was better at using lobbying dollars than Big Mask.
They did have that program:
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1483831305448173578
I personally received free masks. However, it was too late.
It was mostly early COVID when the masks were most needed and not available. Even the strategic stockpile essentially ran out after distributing them to vital areas. By the time they had enough to give them away, everyone had multiple masks of various qualities.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1483831305448173578
I personally received free masks. However, it was too late.
It was mostly early COVID when the masks were most needed and not available. Even the strategic stockpile essentially ran out after distributing them to vital areas. By the time they had enough to give them away, everyone had multiple masks of various qualities.
I didn't even realize they did that, interesting. Sadly, two years late and not even nearly enough if it was on time.
Kinda telling and depressing that everyone was ordering random knockoffs of varying quality from overseas, because we couldn't seem to produce enough domestically.
Kinda telling and depressing that everyone was ordering random knockoffs of varying quality from overseas, because we couldn't seem to produce enough domestically.
How would one even work toward positive results with leadership doing things like this? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-white-house-...
A) they did have that program eventually
B) money doesn’t magically turn into materials and finished goods. Someone had to make masks to distribute and they had to get their raw materials from somewhere right when the supply chain was disrupted.
B) money doesn’t magically turn into materials and finished goods. Someone had to make masks to distribute and they had to get their raw materials from somewhere right when the supply chain was disrupted.
N95s were in short supply for quite a while, and a result from this work is that cloth masks outperformed surgical and KN95s. People made pretty good cloth masks, so unless real N95s were distributed, distributing masks could have been a wash I think.
I’m not surprised that cloth beat surgical, but beating KN95 is kind of a shock. Of course, I’m sure there was quite a bit of variance in cloth mask quality. I wonder if anyone has done specifically a study on the home made cloth masks.
I’m not surprised that cloth beat surgical, but beating KN95 is kind of a shock. Of course, I’m sure there was quite a bit of variance in cloth mask quality. I wonder if anyone has done specifically a study on the home made cloth masks.
Problem is probably that the masks are supposed to be single-use when used as protection and you're meant to replace them even when moving between different places. You're also not meant to wear them for extended periods of time because they supposedly get less effective when they get wet from the moisture of the air you exhale. They also aren't washable so you would need to dispose of them after use.
The coronavirus particles are so small they go right through the filter so N95 masks have special fibers that use electrostatic charge to bind them. The electrostatic filter doesn't work effectively when damp, eg after prolonged exposure to humid breath. There's an incredible amount of engineering that goes into PPE.
Because there was a massive shortage and they were being rationed for healthcare workers? Am I the only one that remembers collection drives for masks for doctors and nurses?
There weren’t nearly enough of those to go around. Even medical staff had trouble procuring these.
The other baffling thing was how long it took cheap Covid antigen tests to reach the US market. In Europe, 1 Euro antigen tests were widely available, while in the US, they could easily cost more than $10 and were difficult to find.
At 1 Euro a test, you could easily test yourself every morning before heading to work or school.
At 1 Euro a test, you could easily test yourself every morning before heading to work or school.
> the inexpensive “duckbill” N95 came out on top,
Inexpensive is not a word I'd use to describe a mask you need multiple of in a week and monthly replacements of thereafter. For a virus that affects the entire world, "developing" and "developed", it's not an easy sell.
But this rather harmless inference could've been promoted instead of the fake initial narrative of "masks are not that useful, save them for medical staff" that happened early on in the pandemic. Policymakers should never be gatekeeping information and acting like the public is too dumb to solve resulting supply-side issues.
Inexpensive is not a word I'd use to describe a mask you need multiple of in a week and monthly replacements of thereafter. For a virus that affects the entire world, "developing" and "developed", it's not an easy sell.
But this rather harmless inference could've been promoted instead of the fake initial narrative of "masks are not that useful, save them for medical staff" that happened early on in the pandemic. Policymakers should never be gatekeeping information and acting like the public is too dumb to solve resulting supply-side issues.
I've been wearing the same N95 duckbill for about 3 years now. It is getting a bit dirty but structurally it's fine. I don't wear it every day though, only in what I deem high-risk situations. Its construction is much more robust than the around-the-ears N95s.
I think one could reasonably stretch out a box of 20 duckbills for a whole year even if worn daily. They are about $1 each. While I could see that there would be places that $20/year would be too much, I don't think money is the barrier here. People just don't like wearing masks (especially respirators, which are bulkier) for many reasons.
I think one could reasonably stretch out a box of 20 duckbills for a whole year even if worn daily. They are about $1 each. While I could see that there would be places that $20/year would be too much, I don't think money is the barrier here. People just don't like wearing masks (especially respirators, which are bulkier) for many reasons.
You really should be replacing them as directed by the manufacturer. They're not effective after prolonged use.
[flagged]
Discussed recently (93 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40565561
Thanks for that. Seems that I've missed it. I suppose this one can be removed.
@Dang the thread linked seems to be wrongly [Flagged]?
Articles sometimes are flagged for poor or inflammatory content, but often it’s the uncivil squabbles that erupt in the comments for completely reasonable but somehow polarizing articles that triggers flagging. I think it’s seen as a regrettable cost of elevating civil discourse. Dang often appears early in such threads “don’t make me turn this car around”-ing, but his warnings are seldom heeded.
This is more and more being abused to kill discussions people don't like.
Seems like a vulnerability in the system.
Seems like a vulnerability in the system.
This is an interesting comparison, as there was a NIOSH study in late 2020 (released in 2021)[1] that used equipment to measure procedure masks, surgical masks, proper disposable respirators (with exhalation valves, since that was the main focus of the study) and cloth face coverings and T-shirt fabric (latter two more representative of common DIY masks).
These were sealed shut onto the test equipment using wax (ie: perfect fitment, so best case scenario). They found a much higher penetration through the materials per se for cloth coverings and procedure masks.
> Particle penetration through the surgical mask ranged from 2% to 17%. Procedure masks were most variable and ranged from 1% to 85%
> For the six cloth face coverings, the submicron particle penetration ranged from 24% to 92%. For the two types of fabric from cotton t-shirts, submicron particle penetration ranged from 45% to 91%. Although this sample size was small, these penetration percentages for the cloth face coverings and fabric from cotton t-shirts are comparable to the 40% to 90% penetration found by previous NIOSH testing of cloth face coverings and fabrics.
For the respirators with exhalation valves their finding was the particle penetration was <1% to 55% without any additional mitigation and under 5% when using the ECG pad mitigation strategy tested. Relevant since a common earlier critique (perhaps assumption) of valved respirators was they weren't as decent as even common masks for non-wearers.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2021-107/pdfs/2021-107.pdf
These were sealed shut onto the test equipment using wax (ie: perfect fitment, so best case scenario). They found a much higher penetration through the materials per se for cloth coverings and procedure masks.
> Particle penetration through the surgical mask ranged from 2% to 17%. Procedure masks were most variable and ranged from 1% to 85%
> For the six cloth face coverings, the submicron particle penetration ranged from 24% to 92%. For the two types of fabric from cotton t-shirts, submicron particle penetration ranged from 45% to 91%. Although this sample size was small, these penetration percentages for the cloth face coverings and fabric from cotton t-shirts are comparable to the 40% to 90% penetration found by previous NIOSH testing of cloth face coverings and fabrics.
For the respirators with exhalation valves their finding was the particle penetration was <1% to 55% without any additional mitigation and under 5% when using the ECG pad mitigation strategy tested. Relevant since a common earlier critique (perhaps assumption) of valved respirators was they weren't as decent as even common masks for non-wearers.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2021-107/pdfs/2021-107.pdf
Studies with different conclusions:
Wearing face masks as a potential source for inhalation and oral uptake of inanimate toxins – A scoping review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014765132...
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents – A scoping review https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)01324-5.pdf
Wearing face masks as a potential source for inhalation and oral uptake of inanimate toxins – A scoping review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014765132...
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Possible toxicity of chronic carbon dioxide exposure associated with face mask use, particularly in pregnant women, children and adolescents – A scoping review https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(23)01324-5.pdf
More importantly, how’s it block the inhalation of covid?
Why more importantly? For an airborne pandemic with very a long incubation period (if memory serves me right up to 2-3 weeks), lack of symptoms in many cases, preventing the spread is the number one priority on the level of a city/local/central government.
Quarantines and lockdowns are good old tested ways, but infeasible for prolonged periods of time. Having everyone wear a mask and drastically reduce the spread was such a no brainer I never understood all the panic around it.
Quarantines and lockdowns are good old tested ways, but infeasible for prolonged periods of time. Having everyone wear a mask and drastically reduce the spread was such a no brainer I never understood all the panic around it.
Much of the US refuses to wear masks. If masks only prevent the virus escaping but not entering, then it is only the selfish segment of society that is being protected.
> then it is only the selfish segment of society that is being protected
But wouldn't that also protect the unselfish?
But wouldn't that also protect the unselfish?
Masks aren't worn only by infected people they are worn to protect against the virus. The virus exists whether you choose to wear a mask or not. But masks prevent an infected person from spreading it from coughing or from non-infected people from breathing it in.
My 3M N95 masks have an one way exhale valve. I don't think it does much to reduce escapes.
3M also make N95 masks without an exhale valve - you should get those instead, the ones with valves are perfectly fine for situations like a non-infected very vulnerable person, but when trying to limit the spread of coronavirus they're basically selfish and less useful, as they don't protect anyone except you.
(Though I must admit, having accidentally bought a few of the valved ones early on in the pandemic, I found that the exhale valve actually meant my warm breath didn't heat the mask & my face quite as much, which was really nice for me as I suffer from hyperhidrosis - excessive facial sweating - but I stuck with using non-valved masks since I'm much less at risk than various friends and family members are.)
(Though I must admit, having accidentally bought a few of the valved ones early on in the pandemic, I found that the exhale valve actually meant my warm breath didn't heat the mask & my face quite as much, which was really nice for me as I suffer from hyperhidrosis - excessive facial sweating - but I stuck with using non-valved masks since I'm much less at risk than various friends and family members are.)
This is logically inconsistent
How so?
If masks only protect the virus from escaping and not entering, then wearing a mask protects non-mask-wearers and other mask-wearers the same.
Sadly, if we call could just care about each other a little more, this country would be a true shining city on a hill.
> then it is only the selfish segment of society that is being protected.
From the 'less selfish' segment, yes, but not from each other.
From the 'less selfish' segment, yes, but not from each other.
"More importantly" because people seem to respond better to self-interest than they do to promoting the public good.
For many ordinary citizens its just panic when asked to perform something not within the usual cultural norms.
In japan this is normal behaviour, whenever you feel under the weather.
Then there were obvious propaganda lies surrounding masks. One was that soldiers wear them- and i was a soldier, with a abc-mask and we "trained" marching with them and unscrewed them to get some air. Then some other world-unaware office worker suggested using them in freezers and cooled environments- which basically boils down to waterboarding yourself with condensing air-moisture. Good idea, pushed by panicy people into bad policy, communicated badly, resulting in massive resistance.
Then there were obvious propaganda lies surrounding masks. One was that soldiers wear them- and i was a soldier, with a abc-mask and we "trained" marching with them and unscrewed them to get some air. Then some other world-unaware office worker suggested using them in freezers and cooled environments- which basically boils down to waterboarding yourself with condensing air-moisture. Good idea, pushed by panicy people into bad policy, communicated badly, resulting in massive resistance.
It is a fair question for what one should do if healthy. Most people today are not wearing masks when sick. So how much protection does an N95 give us vs not wearing a mask at all? If we are healthy, should we bother with masks?
I am healthy, and intend to remain so -- I wear an N95 in all indoor spaces.
The single best prevention for viruses is an adequate amount of quality sleep.
I'd love to see some research on how quality sleep helps with, say, Ebola.
Sleep is primarily preventative, as it plays a role in the immune system. Personally, I haven't been sick in many years and when other people are getting sick I just get tired and sleep a few more hours than usual.
Not the original poster, but It’s probably more important because you can’t force people to wear masks. As such, the question is “can I protect myself?”
If you can, there’s absolutely no reason to force other people to mask anyway & you get the same benefit. That’s the ideal situation for everyone.
If you can, there’s absolutely no reason to force other people to mask anyway & you get the same benefit. That’s the ideal situation for everyone.
> If you can, there’s absolutely no reason to force other people to mask anyway & you get the same benefit.
Until the reaction is along the lines of "we're so afraid that people shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves": https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections...
Until the reaction is along the lines of "we're so afraid that people shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves": https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections...
It seems that since it was first reported, there is now an exception (in this instance at least) for those protecting themselves from communicable diseases.
> Not the original poster, but It’s probably more important because you can’t force people to wear masks.
Why can't "you" force people to wear masks? Depending on exactly who you mean by "you" (the particular poster, an abstract actor (individual or organization), etc.), what you say could be true to mostly false.
Why can't "you" force people to wear masks? Depending on exactly who you mean by "you" (the particular poster, an abstract actor (individual or organization), etc.), what you say could be true to mostly false.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this can clearly be interpreted on a personal level. Every day I can do my best to influence public policy; but even if I am successful, a policy change takes time. In the meantime, I can decide whether I will wear a mask; but I cannot force any other person to wear a mask.
>I never understood all the panic around it
I think a good chunk of it was the CDC randomly changing its recommendations with no real explanation.
At the beginning of the pandemic in the US, from January to May of 2020, there was a big campaign by the CDC to discourage people from wearing masks. I remember seeing various guest "medical experts" on the news claiming that people who wore masks were actually MORE LIKELY to contract COVID. At the same time, virtually every other country was encouraging or mandating masking.
Then June of 2020 came around, masks quickly became encouraged and then mandated. Fauci only made vague and nonsensical statements like "the science changed!" and "we're moving at the speed of science!" to explain the abrupt change in policy. As if there was ever any scientific data to suggest that COVID-19 was not capable of airborne transmission or that masks wouldn't help limit said transmission.
I get that there was a shortage of masks early on and the CDC was probably just trying to prevent panic buying (which occurred anyway, there were N95s selling on amazon for $40 per mask). The ridiculous claim that "masks make you more likely to get COVID" followed by a sudden requirement to wear said "COVID causing" masks completely destroyed public confidence and fueled all kinds of conspiracy theories.
I think a good chunk of it was the CDC randomly changing its recommendations with no real explanation.
At the beginning of the pandemic in the US, from January to May of 2020, there was a big campaign by the CDC to discourage people from wearing masks. I remember seeing various guest "medical experts" on the news claiming that people who wore masks were actually MORE LIKELY to contract COVID. At the same time, virtually every other country was encouraging or mandating masking.
Then June of 2020 came around, masks quickly became encouraged and then mandated. Fauci only made vague and nonsensical statements like "the science changed!" and "we're moving at the speed of science!" to explain the abrupt change in policy. As if there was ever any scientific data to suggest that COVID-19 was not capable of airborne transmission or that masks wouldn't help limit said transmission.
I get that there was a shortage of masks early on and the CDC was probably just trying to prevent panic buying (which occurred anyway, there were N95s selling on amazon for $40 per mask). The ridiculous claim that "masks make you more likely to get COVID" followed by a sudden requirement to wear said "COVID causing" masks completely destroyed public confidence and fueled all kinds of conspiracy theories.
If you read the scientific literature on masking (focused on a flu pandemic) from before the pandemic, there was actually a lot of uncertainty about whether masks would help the general public.
It's obvious that masks help if they're worn correctly, but the uncertainty was around the question of whether the general public would actually wear them properly. In hindsight, it seems obvious that mask-wearing should have been encouraged from day 1, but it somehow wasn't initially clear.
One problem, I think, might be the emphasis on controlled randomized trials (RCT) in medicine, which are not always appropriate. Think of running an RCT on whether parachutes prevent death when falling from planes. We understand the physical mechanism underlying parachutes, so we know mechanistically why they prevent death from falling. Covid is a respiratory virus. Masks physically filter the virus out of the air you breathe in and out. You don't need a study to know that if worn correctly, they will reduce transmission. The real question is how to teach and encourage the public to wear masks properly, not whether masks work in principle.
It's obvious that masks help if they're worn correctly, but the uncertainty was around the question of whether the general public would actually wear them properly. In hindsight, it seems obvious that mask-wearing should have been encouraged from day 1, but it somehow wasn't initially clear.
One problem, I think, might be the emphasis on controlled randomized trials (RCT) in medicine, which are not always appropriate. Think of running an RCT on whether parachutes prevent death when falling from planes. We understand the physical mechanism underlying parachutes, so we know mechanistically why they prevent death from falling. Covid is a respiratory virus. Masks physically filter the virus out of the air you breathe in and out. You don't need a study to know that if worn correctly, they will reduce transmission. The real question is how to teach and encourage the public to wear masks properly, not whether masks work in principle.
I didn’t see those reports (but I don’t really watch TV much).
I can see a logic that goes: we don’t know if masks help yet. Therefore, if you decide to wear a mask, keep that in mind, and continue to follow the distancing guidelines. Also, be careful when donning and doffing your mask, as you are likely to accidentally touch your face at that point.
This is the advice I remember from reading stuff. But, I could definitely imagine people trying to “dumb it down” on TV and coming up with “maybe masks will harm more than hurt.” As a public policy, given the data available at the time that seemed plausible.
Unfortunately everybody’s a pundit on TV, so they might discuss public policy and personal advice (as well as their speculation about how people will feel about public policy, completing the media ouroboros) in one sentence and mix them all up.
Not sure what the fix is, maybe the CDC needs a more active media department to keep on this stuff. In particular, panicking people seem to want to see how these decisions are made. Have every interview be about the error bars, bookended with the current advice, which is just stay far apart.
I can see a logic that goes: we don’t know if masks help yet. Therefore, if you decide to wear a mask, keep that in mind, and continue to follow the distancing guidelines. Also, be careful when donning and doffing your mask, as you are likely to accidentally touch your face at that point.
This is the advice I remember from reading stuff. But, I could definitely imagine people trying to “dumb it down” on TV and coming up with “maybe masks will harm more than hurt.” As a public policy, given the data available at the time that seemed plausible.
Unfortunately everybody’s a pundit on TV, so they might discuss public policy and personal advice (as well as their speculation about how people will feel about public policy, completing the media ouroboros) in one sentence and mix them all up.
Not sure what the fix is, maybe the CDC needs a more active media department to keep on this stuff. In particular, panicking people seem to want to see how these decisions are made. Have every interview be about the error bars, bookended with the current advice, which is just stay far apart.
I saw people reuse the same mask for weeks, cloth or surgical. I think this is what some of the "experts" were referring to, that is even more dangerous than being maskless
luxuryballs(2)
LOL did you mean, "more selfishly"?
Not trying to be snarky, tbh that is more important to me personally, too... but probably not in the broader sense...
Not trying to be snarky, tbh that is more important to me personally, too... but probably not in the broader sense...
It's not the sort of membrane that only works when air is flowing in one direction. It won't protect you from getting goober in your eyes, but when it comes to inhalation, N95 material is great.
It also helps that N95 masks tend to have better nosewires for fit, and specify real head straps, which makes them practically more dependable than some masks like most KF94s.
It also helps that N95 masks tend to have better nosewires for fit, and specify real head straps, which makes them practically more dependable than some masks like most KF94s.
FWIW, now that N95 masks aren't hard to get, I bought some a few months ago and holy crap they're so much better than the KN95s I had to use during COVID. I basically went maskless at times because the KN95 mask just leaked so much that I couldn't wear them. No matter how well I adjusted the metal nose bar, air leaked up when I breathed and it "tickled" my eyes so much I just stopped wearing them. I have since stockpiled a few hundred 3M N95s just in case.
Most masks I used, my glasses would steam up from the amount of leakage.
Edit: With all the statistics that were bandied around in that time, I wonder how many accidents were caused by steamed-up glasses due to leaky masks.
Edit: With all the statistics that were bandied around in that time, I wonder how many accidents were caused by steamed-up glasses due to leaky masks.
I used double stick tape (AKA "boob tape" on Amazon) to reduce leakage around the bridge of my nose. It helped reduce fogging of my glasses a lot.
I guess it's called boob tape because boobs like me use it?
I didn't see any need to wear a mask outdoors (except in a crowded circumstance) or when driving.
I guess it's called boob tape because boobs like me use it?
I didn't see any need to wear a mask outdoors (except in a crowded circumstance) or when driving.
The 3M "Aura" masks with their origami-like folds are really good in terms of fit and comfort. I switched to them also when sanding wood.
About 3 to 4 years too late but cool to read nonetheless.
The people who weren't convinced of "a good mask reduces spread of a respiratory illness" 3-4 years ago won't be convinced by this either.
It's like when Bill Nye debated creationist Ken Ham; when asked what would convince them they're wrong, Nye said "evidence" and Ham said "nothing".
It's like when Bill Nye debated creationist Ken Ham; when asked what would convince them they're wrong, Nye said "evidence" and Ham said "nothing".
The other masks actually didn't work though.
Only disposable paper surgical masks (actually disposed of after single use!) worked (if the definition of worked was "reduced the transmission of at least droplets when coughing"), or real masks like KN95 or N95 certainly worked.
Those cloth masks that were reused every day did far more harm then good, especially if they were not washed. They did nothing against the pressure race of a cough, and most transmissibility was via aerosol anyway, not droplets.
The politics simply distorted the science, like when we saw Executive staff wearing logoed blue cloth masks more as a fashion statement than any real science, while subjecting the wearer to reduced air flow, exacerbating things like asthma or cardiac issues, and trapping some virus and random bacteria in a cess pool of saliva in a cloth mask that got saturated within minutes.
It's a real shame that people who knew better didn't say, "these masks work and these other masks are worse than no mask at all."
Politics took over and both sides were trapped by the nuance, and the result is a stain on the history of science and public health.
Only disposable paper surgical masks (actually disposed of after single use!) worked (if the definition of worked was "reduced the transmission of at least droplets when coughing"), or real masks like KN95 or N95 certainly worked.
Those cloth masks that were reused every day did far more harm then good, especially if they were not washed. They did nothing against the pressure race of a cough, and most transmissibility was via aerosol anyway, not droplets.
The politics simply distorted the science, like when we saw Executive staff wearing logoed blue cloth masks more as a fashion statement than any real science, while subjecting the wearer to reduced air flow, exacerbating things like asthma or cardiac issues, and trapping some virus and random bacteria in a cess pool of saliva in a cloth mask that got saturated within minutes.
It's a real shame that people who knew better didn't say, "these masks work and these other masks are worse than no mask at all."
Politics took over and both sides were trapped by the nuance, and the result is a stain on the history of science and public health.
The article directly contradicts you.
> Led by researchers from the University of Maryland School of Public Health (SPH), results showed other masks also performed well, blocking at least 70% of viral particles from escaping from the source – an infected person’s exhaled breath.
> Cloth masks also outperformed both KN95 and surgical masks. Milton theorizes that cloth masks with greater coverage, wrap around the face and give a better seal than either KN95 or surgical masks. With cloth mask filters, flow resistance is also lower, allowing breath to pass through the filter and not leak out the sides of the mask.
> Led by researchers from the University of Maryland School of Public Health (SPH), results showed other masks also performed well, blocking at least 70% of viral particles from escaping from the source – an infected person’s exhaled breath.
> Cloth masks also outperformed both KN95 and surgical masks. Milton theorizes that cloth masks with greater coverage, wrap around the face and give a better seal than either KN95 or surgical masks. With cloth mask filters, flow resistance is also lower, allowing breath to pass through the filter and not leak out the sides of the mask.
It sounds like those cloth masks are not the style or not worn the way 99.9% of people did. And your quote doesn’t say how often they need to be washed or material or thickness
> It sounds like those cloth masks are not the style or not worn the way 99.9% of people did.
What in the studies are you basing this on?
> And your quote doesn’t say how often they need to be washed or material or thickness
Everyone I know washed theirs at least daily. Perhaps we should've done better "how to wear/wash" education, but we generally don't need regular PSAs to remind people to wash their underpants.
What in the studies are you basing this on?
> And your quote doesn’t say how often they need to be washed or material or thickness
Everyone I know washed theirs at least daily. Perhaps we should've done better "how to wear/wash" education, but we generally don't need regular PSAs to remind people to wash their underpants.
Everyone I knew never washed theirs, maybe every couple weeks at most
That's gross, but probably says more about the people than the masks. Maybe we do need that PSA.
For professionals (doctors) it works, we know that for a long time. It's not fail safe, but it works.
For the rest of the population it is hard to determine a mask measure works. Even with this study it's hard to determine. Regular people tend to reuse masks too much, not care for quality labels (N95, etc), and not adjust them well.
For the rest of the population it is hard to determine a mask measure works. Even with this study it's hard to determine. Regular people tend to reuse masks too much, not care for quality labels (N95, etc), and not adjust them well.
Before you go drinking the kool-aid here, read the sponsoring list. Then go back and read peer reviewed studies on masks that occurred before the COVID pandemic. Or read the disclaimers on the masks. Bottom line, masks, even N95, offer limited mitigation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that. As for the vaccine, personally I know more people that died of vaccine side effects than died of COVID. In fact, I know exactly one person that was deemed a COVID death, despite dying of a hospital acquired staph infection. The government paid more for COVID deaths than dying with COVID. If you spent any time dealing with hospitals during the pandemic, the abuse was obvious. And since it's an election year, it's time to round the sheep up and scare them to death once again. Having lived through numerous pandemics down through the year and seeing how the sheep behavior was stimulated during COVID, my suggestion is that Fauci and the rest of his fascist cabal spend the rest of their lives rotting in jail, especially now that he has essentially admitted that he was making it up as he went along AND that the lab leak theory has gained more traction. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Never again.
jasonvorhe(2)
In females :D (check study)
Yes because men breath differently then women. {eye roll}
To be fair men in general are more likely to have facial hair. Facial hair absolutely impacts the effectiveness of masks.
Facial shape, size, and facial hair (as another commenter here already mentioned) can absolutely matter in mask fit and seal. This is a very common problem in CPAP masks, which use an inflated bladder to adjust to the face of shape. So I can't imagine this *not* being a problem in N95 masks which don't have a bladder but only an edge of slightly flexible material.
And if we're being pedantic, men typicall have ~10% larger lung capacity than women, which may well have an impact on mask performance as well.
So while the original commenter was factually incorrect, the concern doesn't seem terribly far fetched to me.
And if we're being pedantic, men typicall have ~10% larger lung capacity than women, which may well have an impact on mask performance as well.
So while the original commenter was factually incorrect, the concern doesn't seem terribly far fetched to me.
The study says it had 44 volunteers, 43% of whom were female.
Here's how the headline should read:
"The right mask, worn properly, can do a nearly perfect job of blocking COVID-19"
It's incredible to me that after all this, we still write and publish declarative headlines and articles like this.
"The right mask, worn properly, can do a nearly perfect job of blocking COVID-19"
It's incredible to me that after all this, we still write and publish declarative headlines and articles like this.
The article addresses fit.
> Even without giving participants fit tests or training on how to wear masks correctly, all masks significantly reduced the amount of virus escaping into the air.
Including interesting results around cloth masks fitting better than surgical/KN95 masks:
> Cloth masks also outperformed both KN95 and surgical masks. Milton theorizes that cloth masks with greater coverage, wrap around the face and give a better seal than either KN95 or surgical masks. With cloth mask filters, flow resistance is also lower, allowing breath to pass through the filter and not leak out the sides of the mask.
> Even without giving participants fit tests or training on how to wear masks correctly, all masks significantly reduced the amount of virus escaping into the air.
Including interesting results around cloth masks fitting better than surgical/KN95 masks:
> Cloth masks also outperformed both KN95 and surgical masks. Milton theorizes that cloth masks with greater coverage, wrap around the face and give a better seal than either KN95 or surgical masks. With cloth mask filters, flow resistance is also lower, allowing breath to pass through the filter and not leak out the sides of the mask.
Doesn't excuse the lazy headline writing. If we're talking about a serious public health matter, the press shouldn't shift the cognitive load to their readers ffs.
The headline (and its subheadline) is a fair and effective summary of the article. The rest of the article exists for anyone wanting the rest of the details. You only have to go to the first paragraph to hear about other types of masks, and the actual study is linked if you want to get really into the weeds.
You're missing my point.
It's a common mistake to mix up "you're not agreeing with me" and "you're not hearing me". I understand your point; it's just not well supported by the facts. In my opinion, the headline is just fine.
With all of the mandates to wear a mask everywhere I at least would have liked to wear one that worked well. You would have thought if they could produce 6 free tests per household per month, they could produce 6 free N95 masks per household per month.