Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

advances.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#81

Post by macintux »

glofish wrote: post #79
macintux wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people are violently objecting to wearing a mask for 10 minutes in the store , I’m less worried about studies focusing on long-term mask usage and more worried about the impact of those spreading doubt.

I am concerned because they are about to force children wear masks 8 hours a day in school. What do you think it will happen when it comes out this was damaging to their health?

I think students with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases or heart failure should not be in school at all right now with a deadly virus floating around.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#82

Post by davidgould »

yyyk wrote: post #59
makomk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the difference they're referring to is already there in the raw results - remember, they're measuring how well the masks protect others against the wearer by filtering out expelled moisture droplets, and the results show that valved N95 masks are worse than non-valved (though about as good as the very best of the cotton masks).

I doubt the results completely account for the airflow effect, and perhaps the researchers were careful enough to note this. After all, they merely tested one infected person speaking at whatever level is normal for that person at that stage of the disease. It's quite possible that the typical carrier has stronger flow. Besides, sometimes people yell - quite a few people have reason to be on edge these days.

They did not test an infected person. They measured droplets, not virus. Disease progress is not relevant to this paper.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#83

Post by Kiro »

pmachinery wrote: post #77
Kiro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the whole thread. It was a reply to: > So...people need to just slap something over their two air exchanging orifices on their faces before leaving the house and contribute to the our greater health. My point is that if the mask is inefficient it could be counterproductive due to fidgeting. See sibling comment about fleece masks that hopefully makes a better case since you can't agree the slightest that anyone w…

> Read the whole thread. Obviously I read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on what you wrote in it. > Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks It's a banality when in absolutely every thread on this subject at least one person states the totally obvious that doing something incorrectly could might potentially possibly may…

Not washing your hands properly or not being socially distant enough are not counterproductive, they are just unproductive. No-one thinks that less social distance gives you more protection, while wearing an inefficient mask may have the opposite of the desired effect. You're mixing up the "too much anything is bad for you" trope with a serious caveat that has caused whole countries to recommend against face masks.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#84

Post by lm28469 »

Kiro wrote: post #75
lm28469 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe that any experiments would back up that fact. Do people put their fingers in their eyes/nose/mouth when adjusting their masks ? Surely having everyone wear a mask is more efficient than banning masks because a small fraction of mask wearers would catch covid when readjusting their masks.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. I see people fidget with their masks all the time. Here's the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control saying the same thing: > There is a risk that improper removal of the face mask, handling of a contaminated face mask or an increased tendency to touch the face while wearing a face mask by healthy persons might actually increase the risk of transmission. https://www…

I don't doubt some people could self contaminate, I just highly doubt that the risk of self contamination is anywhere close to the risk of regular contamination due to not wearing a mask.

The answer to "improper removal of the face mask" is "proper removal of the face mask" not "tell people not to wear masks"

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#85

Post by pmachinery »

Kiro wrote: post #83
pmachinery wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Read the whole thread. Obviously I read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have commented on what you wrote in it. > Regardless, I don't agree that it's a banality considering the ECDC lists it as an important caveat when using face masks It's a banality when in absolutely every thread on this subject at least one person states the totally obvious that doing something incorrectly could might potentially possibly may…

Not washing your hands properly or not being socially distant enough are not counterproductive, they are just unproductive. No-one thinks that less social distance gives you more protection, while wearing an inefficient mask may have the opposite of the desired effect. You're mixing up the "too much anything is bad for you" trope with a serious caveat that has caused whole countries to recommend against face masks.

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more.

You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject.

I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit.

Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#86

Post by Kiro »

pmachinery wrote: post #85
Kiro wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not washing your hands properly or not being socially distant enough are not counterproductive, they are just unproductive. No-one thinks that less social distance gives you more protection, while wearing an inefficient mask may have the opposite of the desired effect. You're mixing up the "too much anything is bad for you" trope with a serious caveat that has caused whole countries to recommend against face masks.

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more. You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject. I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit. Next time I won't bother assuming…

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us".

The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#87

Post by pmachinery »

Kiro wrote: post #86
pmachinery wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more. You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject. I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit. Next time I won't bother assuming…

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us". The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious d…

The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#88

Post by yyyk »

davidgould wrote: post #82
yyyk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the results completely account for the airflow effect, and perhaps the researchers were careful enough to note this. After all, they merely tested one infected person speaking at whatever level is normal for that person at that stage of the disease. It's quite possible that the typical carrier has stronger flow. Besides, sometimes people yell - quite a few people have reason to be on edge these days.

They did not test an infected person. They measured droplets, not virus. Disease progress is not relevant to this paper.

Ouch. I read droplets and thought 'virus'. That said, my point about the speaker not being representative is still correct. We have no idea if the speaker's speech is typical. It could be their flow is lower than the average.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#89

Post by Kiro »

pmachinery wrote: post #87
Kiro wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us". The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious d…

The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.

Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.

Re: Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets

#90

Post by pmachinery »

Kiro wrote: post #89
pmachinery wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.

Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.

It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'.

When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead.

Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.

Post reply on HN