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

191–200 of 387 posts

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

#191

Post by AshWolfy »

crocodiletears wrote: post #187
solarengineer wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is astounding to a lot of us in South East Asia is the reluctance of the West in learning from our lessons. How many deaths and personal trauma experiences do people in general need to go through in order to learn from others?

In the US, it's more to do with the way the CDC's messaging throughout the pandemic than any rejection of the evidence concerning a mask's efficacy. People refusing to wear masks rarely question whether or not it works, and more to do with a low estimation of the disease's threat, as well as contempt for both the technocrats who chose to mislead the public about masks early on, and leaders who they believe are overst…

As someone who worked the public for the entire pandemic, id say it was about 50-50 between people who thought covid wasnt a threat and people who thought masks werent effective

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

#192

Post by lostlogin »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #165
panarky wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate Effective for the mask wearer, or effective for others in the vicinity of the mask wearer? It's well established that cheap cloth masks and procedure masks don't protect the mask wearer very much. The rationale for cheap masks is that they drastically reduce the spread of particles from the wearer to everyone else nearby . If your goal is to protect yoursel…

I wear "n95" masks while sanding drywall, obviously trying to make the fit as good as possible, and still my boogers end up with tons of plaster in them. I would assume these particles to be bigger than any virion.

When wearing a mask in a hospital setting I had to have a fitting done. A test was run and a machine measured particles getting through. Properly fitted, nothing got though down to a very small size (which I don't recall).

An earlier version of the test saw some particle released into the room and a properly fitted mask wouldn't let it though. If people could smell the chemical, the fit was poor.

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

#193

Post by NeutronStar »

simpleguitar wrote: post #179
nimish wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. It's circular. We need actual tests in the wild, not models.

During an interview with some of the doctors sent into Wuhan in their wave, they claimed none of the 10 thousand or so doctors sent in became infected. They used strict PPE protocol, including N95 masks. Given what we know about the covid transmission now, it was absolutely the N95s that prevented these doctors from getting infected.

Absolutely not. You can't claim absolutely.

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

#194

Post by hartator »

function_seven wrote: post #113
rsj_hn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed this is the money paragraph: "The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate. Compared to N95/FFP2 respirators which have very low particle penetration rates (around ~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (around ~30-70%) (2, 3). Given the large number of particles emitted upon respiration and especially upon sneezing or coughing (4), the number of respi…

> On the other hand, "observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (7–9)." So how to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies? My hypothesis regarding surgical mask prevalence and how it correlates with better virus control: People who wear masks--however effective they m…

> The mask-wearing prevalence is a proxy for how serious the wearer takes Covid as a threat.

But that’s the issue. Science is about finding the truth, not to map itself to trigger some desired social behaviors.

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

#195

Post by function_seven »

hartator wrote: post #194
function_seven wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, "observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (7–9)." So how to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies? My hypothesis regarding surgical mask prevalence and how it correlates with better virus control: People who wear masks--however effective they m…

> The mask-wearing prevalence is a proxy for how serious the wearer takes Covid as a threat. But that’s the issue. Science is about finding the truth, not to map itself to trigger some desired social behaviors.

I fully agree with you. I was just trying to resolve the apparent incongruity between the results in the controlled setting vs the observational results.

There’s a (social) scientific explanation for that as well.

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

#196

Post by AshWolfy »

gonational wrote: post #159
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #39

This entire study seems to be centered around a theoretical, mathematical model, and I didn't see any attempt to actually validate that model. Basically, the authors seem to assume that the virus behaves according to their formulas, and show that under their assumptions, face masks work, but don't actually prove that their assumptions match reality - or did I miss something?

interesting; the same kind of erroneous supposition modeling MO is used to pretend that humans are "cooking the planet" (or is it an ice age? I guess it depends on the decade...).

this is wrong, unrelated, and clear flamebaiting

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

#197

Post by Auracle »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #148
function_seven wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, "observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (7–9)." So how to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies? My hypothesis regarding surgical mask prevalence and how it correlates with better virus control: People who wear masks--however effective they m…

It’s worth also considering the case of ski helmets. Since these have became common on the slopes head trauma has actually increased because wearers take more risks.

I definitely noticed a change in behavior at stores and at weddings I photographed once the mask mandate happened. Before it happened? Small backyard ceremonies with just families. In stores people straight up avoided being close to others.

After? Normal, but with masks.

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

#198

Post by function_seven »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #148
function_seven wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, "observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (7–9)." So how to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies? My hypothesis regarding surgical mask prevalence and how it correlates with better virus control: People who wear masks--however effective they m…

It’s worth also considering the case of ski helmets. Since these have became common on the slopes head trauma has actually increased because wearers take more risks.

Yeah, or the idea that maybe helmets in gridiron football increase CTE.

I see the possibility, but my own anecdotal experience with mask wearers and non-wearers jives with the other correlation: that non-wearers generally didn’t take the pandemic seriously.

The people that I know who shunned masks also ignored the COVID threat in other ways: Large gatherings, vacations to another state to escape lockdown restrictions, etc.

Whereas my religiously-masked friends were basically isolated last year.

And because I have several such anecdotes, I now have data :)

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

#199

Post by jonas21 »

Grimm665 wrote: post #184
jonas21 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen anyone wearing a coffee filter over their face. What are you talking about?

I haven't either but I did have to drive several miles out of my way a few months ago to get coffee filters at the only store in the state that seemed to have them in stock. I was told during checkout people were buying them in bulk to use as masks.

Or buying them in bulk... to make coffee? I'd assume that if people are working from home, they're also making coffee at home instead of getting it at work or on the way to work. And that would be a pretty reasonable explanation for shortages of filters that fit in home coffee makers.

I know my personal use of coffee filters went up about 10x during the pandemic. And no, they were not on my face.

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

#200

Post by Auracle »

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 be that Southern California believes in masks too much? As in, they weren’t as cautious in other ways?
Post reply on HN