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

91–100 of 387 posts

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

#91

Post by toss1 »

omegaworks wrote: post #53
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…

Half the articles on your list are tangential (masks make it marginally harder to exercise, ok duh). The article posted helps us understand why the viral concentration in the environment also impacts efficacy, it helps explain why some of the articles you posted see inconclusive results.

And even the "masks make it marginally harder to exercise" is likely wrong.

The winner of the 10,000m race at the 2019 USA Track & Field Championships wore a mask against his pollen allergies. [1]

Worn properly, they just disappear. I wear N95s a work for many tasks, and they are mildly distracting for a few minutes, then I forget about them. Even more so now with wearing them for the pandemic.

Yes, education about masks could be a LOT better, but using that is more anti-mask FUD is borderline sociopathic.

[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/2011/06/galen_rupp_...

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

#92

Post by Louis_Sarwal »

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…

We immediately face this issue: You should not act on information, or even knowledge. You should act on WISDOM. Wisdom is hard to gain, and yet it proves itself time after time to be better than the other forms of truth. Education is not the key; That would be wisdom. I do admit that most of what they teach is falsehood, and it would be better if it were truth.It would be better of there were no education at all than what we have now. In fact, it would be better to have no education system at all than to have a good education system that is liable to deteriorate. This is especially true when that system is a cost and a burden to and on society. Your information, however, is hardly better than the "n95 is coffee filter". There is no good proof on how airborne viruses are transmitted! Wearing a mask may do nothing, or it may do everything(Well, it can't do everything. Masks haven't stopped gov't from the vaccine)! It is likely that much of the transmission is not even caused by the oral and nasal areas, but instead is due to fecal aerosols. Our best solution may be the abolition of apartments and shared housing. SOme sort of filter should be put on the toilets, not on our faces. Cleansing chemicals(like bleach) should be put in the toilets, not in our arms.

Let us remember that choices should be made carefully, with consideration, and only once all of the facts are present.

Let us not be hasty-We must wait until a length of time has past in which effects which take alonger time to present themselves are presented.

This may require the foregoing of many necessary things. But such is the cost of life. Such is necessary to avoid death, or things much worse.

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

#93

Post by omginternets »

vondur wrote: post #88

I don't know. We had some of the highest mask wearing percentages in the country here in Southern California, yet some of the highest infection rates in the world. Something isn't adding up here. I'm guessing if everyone had N95 masks, we would have seen lower numbers however. I don't think the average cloth masks that people are wearing are very effective.

Could it have to do with population density (perhaps even only in certain areas)? My reasoning is that you could have high transmission among the minority that doesn't wear masks, and that might suffice to make the absolute case-load quite high.

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

#95

Post by Louis_Sarwal »

auxym wrote: post #86
mhb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people need to know how they work. They just need to know that those are what doctors wear and that they are very, very effective. And much better than a mask you make from ad hoc materials. Once N95 masks became readily available and cheap, it was (and is) mysterious why people weren't being told to wear them to protect themselves instead of wearing whatever was at hand to sort of protect themselves an…

Last I checked in Canada, N95 masks are still about 3$ a pop for disposable, single use masks from industrial distributors. Pre pandemic, we bought 3M 8210s for about 15 cents in boxes of 160. I wouldn't call the current situation available and cheap. Oh, and if you thought surgical masks were mildly uncomfortable, N95s are an order of magnitude worst. They pretty much need a perfect seal with your face and the 3Ms u…

The discomfort is a sign that they may work.

Not proof--but a sign.

They are expensive, and I do not reccommend wearing them. I do not reccommend doing anything, expecially anything that has a high chance of bringing unknown costs.

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

#96

Post by Louis_Sarwal »

kickopotomus wrote: post #32
bitcurious wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a few of my friends fell victim to the Qanon conspiracy bandwagon and the fact that mask pore size is wider than the virus was heavily circulated as a reason for mask ineffectiveness.

Q is a symbol used by pedophiles to say that they are pedos ;). Just look at "Q", and you will see what I mean. Nothing complex about it.

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

#97

Post by mhb »

auxym wrote: post #86
mhb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people need to know how they work. They just need to know that those are what doctors wear and that they are very, very effective. And much better than a mask you make from ad hoc materials. Once N95 masks became readily available and cheap, it was (and is) mysterious why people weren't being told to wear them to protect themselves instead of wearing whatever was at hand to sort of protect themselves an…

Last I checked in Canada, N95 masks are still about 3$ a pop for disposable, single use masks from industrial distributors. Pre pandemic, we bought 3M 8210s for about 15 cents in boxes of 160. I wouldn't call the current situation available and cheap. Oh, and if you thought surgical masks were mildly uncomfortable, N95s are an order of magnitude worst. They pretty much need a perfect seal with your face and the 3Ms u…

3M 8210s are US $26 for 20 now. $1.30 per mask seems pretty reasonable to me, but I've never bought them in industrial quantities so don't have that anchor.

I've worn N95s for hours (actually P95s which have a nicer seal) and I agree that they're less comfortable than less effective alternatives. But it is a bit curious that people are concerned enough to be wearing their homemade mask alone in a car or walking outside by themselves but are unwilling to endure the slight additional discomfort of a known effective mask.

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

#98

Post by jmull »

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 really hurt your credibility when the first link doesn’t support the argument you claim it does.

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

#99

Post by omginternets »

joshuaengler wrote: post #74

The VAST majority of mask wearing I have seen in California has been average cloth-covers. I have only seen a handful of people out of thousands actually wearing N95 masks, so perhaps N95 is highly effective at stopping viruses, but I see basically nobody wearing that. Stores, offices, buildings, all are completely fine with you wearing a bandana over your face. There is effectively no point in even mandating mask la…

>The coffee filters people are wearing over their face will do close to nothing

I'm not an expert, but I believe this is not quite accurate. As I understand it, even a piece of cloth helps prevent the spread of the virus to others. The mechanism is that the virus exits your nose/mouth in the form of macroscopic droplets that later break down into microscopic droplets a few inches from your face. A bandanna will catch the big droplets before they split apart.

Post reply on HN