> Looking at how masks are being used (reused, touched) one could argue they do more harm than good
One could argue that, but one would look like a moron without any proof, and with a lot of evidence showing the exact opposite.
Given the huge amount of evidence of transmission by cough droplets and the lack of evidence of even a single transmission out of millions by touching masks/surfaces, keeping droplets out of your mouth and nose is the only thing that helps and it definitely does more good than harm.
> It seems reasonable to suggest that masks reduce disease and save lives. This may be a scientifically provable fact.
When masks are worn correctly by trained people as intended (form fitted N95s used for one short task in one room and then safely discarded), there seems to be a reasonable argument that masks are somewhat effective for reducing the spread of disease.
But in the real world; the masks are the wrong types and aren't form-fitted, people are constantly adjusting them and moving them around and touching them, many people are basically walking around half the time with their nose hanging out, people wear them not only for many hours at a time but often for days/weeks at a time without being washed and breathing in their own moist bacteria colonies, etc. I'm not sure if real-world mask usage results in a significant net-positive: they could actually have a net-negative effect when you consider the amount of bacteria people are inhaling from their own mask.
I’m not that sure. A lot of experts agree that there’s not much quality data to reach that conclusion.
Most “definitive proof” comes from mechanical studies (they measure how far your saliva is reaching with and with out mask), but that’s not the only important factor.
Masks are not designed for full day use, and by wearing them everyone is constantly touching their face, mouth and nose. This sounds to me like a way worse infection vector. Viruses like covid can survive for a long time on surfaces.
It’s hard to separate the effects of masks from that of hand sanitizer, vaccinations, or other measures taken.
> From what I read, these are only useful if you're sick and trying to reduce transmission.
Governments have been telling this, as well, but it cannot be 100% true. I supposed it was a white lie to prevent people from stockpiling.
Otherwise, there would be no use in medical personnel using masks.
I can understand that face masks might not be the best measure for healthy people, I can understand that they might not be super-effective, I can also understand that only certain types of masks are effective, but I cannot rationally believe all masks are completely useless.
>My understanding is that masks offer only minor protection against getting it, but help a lot against spreading it. They don’t stop a virus but they catch the snots.
> the primary appeal of masks is for quelling fear and anxiety, not preventing spread.
The appeal of masks for me is definitely to lower spread. Yes there is signaling, but also because masks reduce amount of possibly covid-infected droplets expelled from the mouth and nose while breathing and speaking.
It is not possible to have a 6 foot bubble around everybody at all times. It is possible to always wear a mask.
> But the purpose of universal wearing of cloth masks is mainly to protect people from the wearer.
Cloth masks definitely don't protect other people from the wearer. What's the mechanism of action there? Someone coughs, but that shitty cloth mask i) catches everything and ii) the wearer doesn't fiddle with it all day and then touch everything around them?
> It’s weird. Masks have always been known to reduce transmission from a sick person. Keyword being reduce. But the anti mask people, especially on Twitter or Facebook are like “see this study! Masks don’t work”
I never understood the "masks are useless" claims. I've seen it in lots of forms, sometimes covering all types of masks or sometimes just cloth ones.
We've spent so long teaching people to cover their mouths when they cough specifically because it's been proven to help! We teach little kids to "Vampire Cough/Sneeze" for that very reason. Literally anything you put in front of your virus spewing face hole is going to do some good, but since N95 masks aren't 100% effective every single time it's not worth doing anything to protect the people around you? It really just seems like people looking for any excuse or justification to not be inconvenienced in any way for the benefit of the people around them. Like a very aggressive kind of selfishness I can't wrap my head around. Like people will hurt themselves to avoid doing anything that might help somebody else.
> Thats basically a misinformation. They are completely useless, and if you dont change them each 40-50 minutes - bring you more damage then good
Evidence required.
If mist forms on my glasses from breathing, I assume the mask must be doing something.
I read a comment the other day on how many efforts are impeded by the "quest for perfection"
I know such homemade masks are not 100% proof. But even if they only work to reduce 10% of the risks if everybody wore them, than can be the difference between a R0 of 1.1 and 1.0 - and gives great results overall.
Don't just think about yourself. We are young and at no real risk of dying (0.1%, whatever). But we may cause the death of other people by simply contaminating more people.
Small actions are better than doing nothing when facing exponential growth
> especially since the prevailing guidance for a year now has been to wear masks to reduce airborne transmission
That is just an appeal to authority. Which has been par for course. This whole mess is built on a tower of circular references where everybody says "well, the other guy said to do it and they must have a good reason for it".
That being said, I too share a hypothesis that improperly worn masks (aka 95% of all masks being worn) do more harm than good. I'd love to see studies that show it but in this environment good luck getting it funded, much less published. Authors of such a study would probably get death threats.
Also being said, it isn't upon the skeptics to prove that masks dont work. You cannot prove something doesn't work. The burden of proof is on the people who say masks work in a way that makes them work their non-trival costs to society. Logic has been inverted the entire time this mess has been going on... somehow it is up to the skeptics to "prove" that restrictions don't work, "prove" that masks don't work, and "prove" that it is safe to return to normal. Nope. That isn't how it works.
> Masks are for keeping your own particles from spreading far, not the other way around.
Masks are for keeping your own particles from spreading far AND for lowering the probability of virions found in the environment from entering your respiratory system.
Masks lower the probability when all other variables are held constant. If someone thinks wearing a mask grants invincibility and in turn chooses to increase their exposure to high viral load individuals or environments, they're putting themselves at risk.
Their efficiency at stopping the spread is extremely small, and the whole debate takes energy away from things that actually work that we should be doing instead.
Masks are virtue-signaling talismans at best, just look at how people are actually using them.
> One thing that I learned from a recent trip to Hong Kong is that the logic behind the masks isn't to prevent you from picking up the virus (which of course is not effective, as you just said) but to stop you from infecting others with your coughs and sneezes.
Yes, this is the same advice that the CDC and WHO give. If you're unwell yourself, wear a mask to protect others. If you're not unwell, it's not necessary to wear a mask to prevent others from infecting you, as they haven't been shown to be effective when used in this way.
> For some reason, anti-maskers try to move the goal post by pretending that a basic protective measure is either full-proof or is not worth doing at all, which boggles anyone's mind.
I don't know about other "anti-maskers," but for me, it's about the precautionary principle [1]. If a "basic protective measure" is not foolproof, then maybe the downsides of such a measure outweighs the benefits, and before we decide, collectively, to change our habits, maybe we should think hard about those downsides.
Yes, there are downsides to masks: reduced oxygen, keeping captured bacteria close to your face for long periods, etc., made worse by the fact that people, by and large, do not rotate or clean their masks properly. In other words, experiments in a lab that study the effectiveness of masks when used properly do not match the reality of how people actually use masks.
In other words, in science, all factors matter. [2] And pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
> At the moment the mechanism for increased risk is as plausible as the mechanism for decreased risk.
It does not seem to me. There is like no study that shows masks increase risk of spreading infection and I have seen multiple that show it takes it at least somehow down. (I am lazy to search it down again. In pretty much all these discussions someone linked.)
> Masks are uncomfortable and people need to adjust them during the day -- this is an increase in face touching, and masks are by definition contaminated.
Even if this was true, you are still less likely to infect others if you are asymptomatic. It is not just about you. And as someone who was wearing mask for multiple weeks (they were mandated here), it is not some kind of horrible uncomfortable.
> The only point of wearing masks is when you cannot socially distance yourself from other people. That's why masks are being pushed so hard now -- to end the lockdowns and get people back into work.
You are also meeting people in stores, in public transport, when walking on the street anywhere. Even in lockdown, people still need to eat. Sure you don't need mask when you are alone in the forrest. You dont need to wash hands there either and can touch your face as much as you like (at least not due to coronavirus).
When I am alone in my house with supplies, I dont need to do anything special and I can touch my face as much as I want. All other measures apply only when you are in space shared with other people.
> there is no good quality evidence to show that masks work, and there's plenty of evidence to show that masks do not work.
Bullshit. Most of all because it's not a binary issue at all. Even if masks reduce the number of particles you exhale and inhale only by 30%, that makes a huge difference for the population as a whole.
> This is false. A more accurate statement would be, "masks help".
Actually, the accurate statement would be "Masks may help protect you a little bit, but they're much better preventing you from spreading the virus to others."
The best production you can have is if those around you are conscientious, and you are likewise.
Could I get a citation for this please? Just about every source I've seen has since admitted that masks did absolutely nothing for the purposes for which they were advised to be used.
> An imperfect mask is surely going to result in a borderline contacts with infection being non-infections.
Not necessarily. The mask blocks the virus going both ways, so maybe only 10% of the virus particles get inside the mask, but 90% of those that would be exhaled also stay inside the mask.
This is not an opinion on whether masks work, just an illustration that it's plausible they don't.
One could argue that, but one would look like a moron without any proof, and with a lot of evidence showing the exact opposite.
Given the huge amount of evidence of transmission by cough droplets and the lack of evidence of even a single transmission out of millions by touching masks/surfaces, keeping droplets out of your mouth and nose is the only thing that helps and it definitely does more good than harm.
reply