7 ms·

> It started with masks. The studies that we had about masks really were not great, but they did a risk-reward calculation behind closed doors: worst case scena

by davmar 5y ago

> It started with masks. The studies that we had about masks really were not great, but they did a risk-reward calculation behind closed doors: worst case scenario, the surgical masks don't impact the spread and it changes nothing; best case scenario, we reduce community spread. The problem with this is that if they told the public that this was how they were thinking about the problem, they wouldn't get people wearing the masks, so they overstated their confidence in it when speaking to the public. A good amount of people truly believe that the science was clear. But it wasn't. Inaccurate and dangerously wrong conjecture. Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. That's why terms like N95 even exist. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7 That study came out last year, but there are similar studies published many years ago. I don't have time to google for them all right now, but they are out there for those who want to find them. The science on masking was clear and your statement is irresponsible.

zdragnar 5y ago
If you wouldn't trust a cloth mask to protect you from asbestos dust or second hand smoke, you shouldn't trust it to protect you from a disease that spreads as an aerosol. OSHA doesn't, and you shouldn't either.
- davmar 5y ago
  Not all cloth masks function the same way. If you read the studies, it depends on the weaving and the material. Cotton vs. denim, for example, is studied. None are as effective as a non-woven material. But they are still more effective than no mask. Edit: > asbestos dust or second hand smoke You have to know what size of particulate matter that you're looking to filter is in order to determine whether that mask material works for the given application. What you're saying is too broad to be useful and isn't very insightful.
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Aerosol viral loads are (if I heard correctly) 50x smaller than asbestos particles. OSHA doesn't allow cloth masks to be used around asbestos. If this were a flu that spread primarily as droplets, cloth masks would have their place. As it is, we have known since early on that wasn't the case, and that cloth masks are about as useful as a cloth bonnet would be useful as a motorcycle helmet.
    - davmar 5y ago
      https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025 "Materials were microimaged and tested against size selected NaCl aerosol with particle mobility diameters between 50 and 825 nm. Three of the top five best performing samples were woven 100% cotton with high to moderate yarn counts, and the other two were woven synthetics of moderate yarn counts" This image in particular: https://pubs.acs.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/ancac3/2020/ancac3.2020.14.issue-7/acsnano.0c05025/20201113/images/medium/nn0c05025_0002.gif https://pubs.acs.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/achs/jou... You can see N95 non-woven performs the best, but cotton twill does provide protection. Cool analogy tho.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        50-850nm is way off; coronavirus are 20-500 tops. I guess we should call OSHA and tell them that it is okay to consider cloth masks as safety equipment around asbestos.
geoduck14 5y ago
>Inaccurate and dangerously wrong conjecture. Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. Sure, but what wasn't certain was things like: Was covid transmitted in the air by particles (yes)? Was it transmitted via aerosols (no)? Was it transmitted by touch (no)? How many particles are needed to infect someone (unsure)? Do masks protect me or someone else? What type of masks are needed to protect? How many masks do I need to wear? From my exposure, I saw non experts being very emphatic about answers that actually took a long time to get answers to. These emphatic non experts alienated people that continued continued be unsure. In some cases, the experts were emphatic - and then wrong - which further alienated people.
nickysielicki 5y ago
You're missing my point. Do you remember last year, very early in the pandemic, when Fauci went on TV and urged people not to go out and horde N95s, claiming that they didn't work, when in reality he just wanted to ensure that they were available for healthcare workers? And then he flipped around weeks later and recommended surgical masks for everyone? I'm not claiming that masks do or don't work. I'm just claiming that they lied about it (twice) to suit their interests. > Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. That's why terms like N95 even exist. Sure, but what about for aerosols? If you want to see what the self-proclaimed rational community thought of masks and research available at the time in March of 2020 as it pertained to COVID, see this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
- davmar 5y ago
  I agree with you on that point. Fauci told a noble lie about the N95 masks and it really harmed credibility. Perhaps I did miss your point. My intention was to say that, outside of Fauci, the science around mask efficacy was well-known because you said that it wasn't.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    once you start accepting the existence of "noble lies" told by authority figures, why do you continue to trust them?
- mcguire 5y ago
  Your anecdote is false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201328

by davmar 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

If you wouldn't trust a cloth mask to protect you from asbestos dust or second hand smoke, you shouldn't trust it to protect you from a disease that spreads as an aerosol. OSHA doesn't, and you shouldn't either.

davmar 5y ago
Not all cloth masks function the same way. If you read the studies, it depends on the weaving and the material. Cotton vs. denim, for example, is studied. None are as effective as a non-woven material. But they are still more effective than no mask. Edit: > asbestos dust or second hand smoke You have to know what size of particulate matter that you're looking to filter is in order to determine whether that mask material works for the given application. What you're saying is too broad to be useful and isn't very insightful.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Aerosol viral loads are (if I heard correctly) 50x smaller than asbestos particles. OSHA doesn't allow cloth masks to be used around asbestos. If this were a flu that spread primarily as droplets, cloth masks would have their place. As it is, we have known since early on that wasn't the case, and that cloth masks are about as useful as a cloth bonnet would be useful as a motorcycle helmet.
  - davmar 5y ago
    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c05025 "Materials were microimaged and tested against size selected NaCl aerosol with particle mobility diameters between 50 and 825 nm. Three of the top five best performing samples were woven 100% cotton with high to moderate yarn counts, and the other two were woven synthetics of moderate yarn counts" This image in particular: https://pubs.acs.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/ancac3/2020/ancac3.2020.14.issue-7/acsnano.0c05025/20201113/images/medium/nn0c05025_0002.gif https://pubs.acs.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/achs/jou... You can see N95 non-woven performs the best, but cotton twill does provide protection. Cool analogy tho.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      50-850nm is way off; coronavirus are 20-500 tops. I guess we should call OSHA and tell them that it is okay to consider cloth masks as safety equipment around asbestos.

geoduck14 5y ago

>Inaccurate and dangerously wrong conjecture. Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. Sure, but what wasn't certain was things like: Was covid transmitted in the air by particles (yes)? Was it transmitted via aerosols (no)? Was it transmitted by touch (no)? How many particles are needed to infect someone (unsure)? Do masks protect me or someone else? What type of masks are needed to protect? How many masks do I need to wear? From my exposure, I saw non experts being very emphatic about answers that actually took a long time to get answers to. These emphatic non experts alienated people that continued continued be unsure. In some cases, the experts were emphatic - and then wrong - which further alienated people.

nickysielicki 5y ago

You're missing my point. Do you remember last year, very early in the pandemic, when Fauci went on TV and urged people not to go out and horde N95s, claiming that they didn't work, when in reality he just wanted to ensure that they were available for healthcare workers? And then he flipped around weeks later and recommended surgical masks for everyone? I'm not claiming that masks do or don't work. I'm just claiming that they lied about it (twice) to suit their interests. > Research published long before COVID-19 proved the efficacy of masking in blocking particulate matter. That's why terms like N95 even exist. Sure, but what about for aerosols? If you want to see what the self-proclaimed rational community thought of masks and research available at the time in March of 2020 as it pertained to COVID, see this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

davmar 5y ago
I agree with you on that point. Fauci told a noble lie about the N95 masks and it really harmed credibility. Perhaps I did miss your point. My intention was to say that, outside of Fauci, the science around mask efficacy was well-known because you said that it wasn't.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  once you start accepting the existence of "noble lies" told by authority figures, why do you continue to trust them?
mcguire 5y ago
Your anecdote is false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28201328