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

Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 387 posts

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#41

Post by samatman »

awb wrote: post #12
andrew_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2yo would like to sneeze on you and flip that anecdote on its head.

Years ago my entire family got sick and I was determined not to contract it through distancing and frequent hand washing and sanitizing. It worked until I bent down to tie my toddler’s shoes only to look up and mid-sentence have him cough directly into my open mouth. All it takes is one mistake. Needless to say I got sick shortly after.

I wonder what the result would have been if you immediately gargled with vodka.

I've used that successfully in the past to chase colds out of the throat before they get into my nose and lungs.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#42

Post by kadoban »

bitcurious wrote: post #24
sschueller wrote: post #17

N95/FFP2 seem to be very effective. I wish the media and government would have spent more time in educating people in things like how N95 masks work and that it isn't like a coffee filter. Even thought the pores are larger than a virus the masks are statically charged causes smaller things to get trapped. Many people don't know this but probably had an interaction with static electricity sometime in school and would…

I’m not sure there was any popular doubt over the efficacy of N95 masks. The problem was rather getting one - marketplaces like Amazon restricted access to masks if you weren’t affiliated with a hospital. So you were left with sketchy deals and weird vendor sites. I suspect Amazon killed quite a few people over the last year by restricting access - supply scaled pretty quickly.

Unfortunately there is _absolutely_ popular doubt about this, and every other thing you likely think is obvious about covid and the world. I don't think educating people about masks is really the answer though. I don't know what the answer is, or if there even is one. Feel like our society is coming apart at the seams.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#45

Post by neither_color »

cr1895 wrote: post #19
tryonenow wrote: post #2

>Surgical masks with particle collection efficiencies around ~50% cannot prevent the release of millions of particles per person and their inhalation by others (green dots in Fig. 1, B and D). In other words, the human-emitted respiratory particle number is so high that we cannot avoid inhaling particles generated by another person even when wearing a surgical mask So the entire premise of the modeling in the paper r…

Here’s a nice interactive graphic showing how masks block particles: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/30/science/wear-...

That's a very cool visualization and I wish I'd seen it before. I am curious though as to what makes some viruses have higher R values than others. These masks more effectively stopped influenza and I still don't understand why.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#46

Post by poutine »

neither_color wrote: post #28
splitrocket wrote: post #3

Not that this will settle anything. Anecdotally, I've not gotten even a slight cold while being socially distanced while consistently masked.

Anecdotally I haven't had a cold in years. I work out 4 days a week and while I wouldn't call it a strict diet I have an upper limit calorie "budget" that I never exceed. While it's certainly possible that masks helped some people avoid all airborne transmissions last year, lots of people were also able to exercise more and make better food choices without the rush of breakfast and lunch commutes.

Get kids. They are plague carriers.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#47

Post by takeda »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #22

This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…

The study about mask being ineffective is about cloth mask. That's why the hospital masks are no longer made of cloth.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#48

Post by microdrum »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #22

This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…

You are exactly correct, and being downvoted because of religious zealotry. This is a mathematical model. Yes, face coverings cover the face. It's a long (and ultimately disproven) leap to: face coverings materially suppress virus in a society of millions of people.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#49

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

bitcurious wrote: post #24
sschueller wrote: post #17

N95/FFP2 seem to be very effective. I wish the media and government would have spent more time in educating people in things like how N95 masks work and that it isn't like a coffee filter. Even thought the pores are larger than a virus the masks are statically charged causes smaller things to get trapped. Many people don't know this but probably had an interaction with static electricity sometime in school and would…

I’m not sure there was any popular doubt over the efficacy of N95 masks. The problem was rather getting one - marketplaces like Amazon restricted access to masks if you weren’t affiliated with a hospital. So you were left with sketchy deals and weird vendor sites. I suspect Amazon killed quite a few people over the last year by restricting access - supply scaled pretty quickly.

The US seems to have relied heavily on cloth masks, even long after the shortages were over. From my understanding, surgical masks are much more effective (while often being more comfortable) than community/cloth masks. (I don't have a source for this on hand, but the German government did ban cloth masks/require at least surgical masks in many areas for this reason.)

I suspect a lot of that was out of a desire to not appear as backtracking on a previous position.

Re: Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

#50

Post by brobdingnagians »

oarfish wrote: post #38
brobdingnagians wrote: post #22

This isn't a study; it is a mathematical model [1]. > Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the…

Interesting how some of the linked studies either contradict your statement, or seem to have nothing to do with it.

Some are indirectly related, but all are linked in some way. Like how some find that it _could_ have a positive effect and postulate how, but that the studies they reviewed in the meta-review didn't _show_ that.
Post reply on HN