Immanuel Kant and wearing masks in public.

you're stuck with 99 other people. One of you has Coronavirus and doesn't know it. Masks...

  • ... should be warn by everyone.

  • ... should be warn by most people.

  • ... should be warn only by those comfortable wearing one.

  • ... it doesn't matter because masks don't do anything at all.

  • ... it doesn't matter because the virus is going to get everyone eventually anyway.

  • ... should be warn by everyone but me.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Kimberlyann11

I make you clutch your pearls
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Please pin your multitude of studies, I am a doctor and know that masks (depending on the mask) can have some benefit to the wearer. There are many factors which influence the effectivenes. However I wear a mask to do surgery not to protect me but to keep foreign bodies and contaminates out of surgical site. The idea that we should mandate or force someone to wear a mask is silly in my opinion. I had someone come into my office with a crocheted mask on just the other day, stylish But not effective.
As for your thoughts on science, it is and should always be a robust debate. Not telling one side or the other to shut up and concede. Many issues which were once overwhelmingly thought to be decided science were in fact later proven to be very different. If we don’t have a questioning mind and allow ourselves to debate we are doomed to be sheep that can be fed anything in the name of science. Remember scientist are people with their own biases and agendas, not infallible.
So - If you wear a mask in the surgical suite to keep contaminants - I assume including viruses (correct me if I'm wrong on that) out of the surgical field, why wouldn't the same concept work out "in the wild" so to speak?
 

sam_gordon

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
The WHO is referring to medical grade masks, which are needed for caregivers. I'm sure your source didn't specify that.

Even if we stretch it out and assume that they are referring to ALL masks, they referenced healthy people. This bug can have up to a two week incubation period. You don't know if you're healthy or if you're in the incubation period. You might even be an asymptomatic carrier.

(My autocorrect keeps wanting to correct the WHO to The Who. I don't really think the board cares about Pete Townsend's opinion).
So you think we should assume the WHO feels everyone should be wearing a mask even if they don't say that?

Again...
Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
So, assuming you do frequent hand cleaning, does the wearing the mask actually help?

Have there been studies of how helpful cloth masks actually are? Yes, they can stop "large" droplets, but if the virus still gets through on "small" droplets, is it really helpful?
 

Pea-n-Me

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
The WHO is referring to medical grade masks, which are needed for caregivers. I'm sure your source didn't specify that.

Even if we stretch it out and assume that they are referring to ALL masks, they referenced healthy people. This bug can have up to a two week incubation period. You don't know if you're healthy or if you're in the incubation period. You might even be an asymptomatic carrier.

(My autocorrect keeps wanting to correct the WHO to The Who. I don't really think the board cares about Pete Townsend's opinion).
I took that reference to mean people without major risk factors.
 
  • pahoben

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    I think the bigger issue is that poor air quality impairs the lungs in the first place, making people more vulnerable to the virus.
    The Italy study detected RNA or one specific gene on the samples from air filter collection. The Singapore hospital study also used RT-PCR detection on surface and air samples. That doesn't tell you anything about the amount or the infectivity, which is the problem with PCR detection methods for this type of study. The Singapore study cites another study where there was an attempt to infect cells from air samples but that "study indicates that SARS-CoV could exist in the air where SARS patients live, but the infectivity of SARS-CoV in air samples is very weak." So bottom line, it is still poorly understood. That said, masks help mitigate the primary mode of transmission which we know to be droplet spread. Aerosol transmission is a much larger issue for healthcare workers who hook sick people up to the machines that generate aerosols. Aerosols generated by acts such as talking or singing (like in the choir transmission, and the "no screaming" request on thrill rides discussed in another thread) need more investigation. Viral loads and likelihood of transmission need to be better understood in this area.
    I realize that there are strong biases in the medical community about aerosol transmission. I wasn’t referring to a study in Singapore based on PCR. The linked study is based on titration and viable infective virus recovered from a dehydrated state and is the study I referenced casually-


    Also attached is a study from Hong Kong evaluating the transmission of SARS on fomites albeit model based. I can find other studies on transmission by fomites but it would take time that I don’t really want to devote to it. If you look at transmission routes that include dehydrated transmission it is really not an issue from a consideration of the physics. With quintillions or septillions of copies being made it is inconceivable to me that variants wouldn’t arise that bridge this transmission issue. This view is supported by the Singapore study above indicating Cov’s are viable after dehydration in conditions typical of air conditioned spaces.


    If you look at the settling time of large droplets in still atmosphere with some forward velocity from sneezing or coughing you have a very small radius befor settling to the floor or ground or whatever of the virus laden droplet. The traditional model of transmission by large sneeze or cough droplets in no way captures the required route of transmission for a large percentage of infected persons that were in fact not in the direct path of a sneeze or cough. Once droplets are sufficiently small the liquid component evaporates at a very fast rate because the surface area is large with respect to the volume of the droplet.

    sorry spell check changes fomites to vomited
     
    Last edited:
  • pahoben

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    I realize that there are strong biases in the medical community about aerosol transmission. I wasn’t referring to a study in Singapore based on PCR. The linked study is based on titration and viable infective virus recovered from a dehydrated state and is the study I referenced casually-


    Also attached is a study from Hong Kong evaluating the transmission of SARS on fomites albeit model based. I can find other studies on transmission by fomites but it would take time that I don’t really want to devote to it. If you look at transmission routes that include dehydrated transmission it is really not an issue from a consideration of the physics. With quintillions or septillions of copies being made it is inconceivable to me that variants wouldn’t arise that bridge this transmission issue. This view is supported by the Singapore study above.


    If you look at the settling time of large droplets in still atmosphere with some forward velocity from sneezing or coughing you have a very small radius befor settling to the floor or ground or whatever of the virus laden droplet. The traditional model of transmission by large sneeze or cough droplets in no way captures the required route of transmission for a large percentage of infected persons that were in fact not in the direct path of a sneeze or cough. Once droplets are sufficiently small the liquid component evaporates at a very fast rate because the surface area is large with respect to the volume of the droplet.

    sorry spell check changes fomites to vomited
    It is shocking to me that research into atmospheric transmission of viruses is so sparse considerIng the CDC and NIH budgets. I think one problem has been that it requires a multi disciplinary approach and likely with advanced sensors not typically used by the medical community. The other is the political component that determines how funds are spent.
     

    ShirikiUtundu

    Cursed Idol
    Joined
    Aug 11, 2011
    I realize that there are strong biases in the medical community about aerosol transmission. I wasn’t referring to a study in Singapore based on PCR. The linked study is based on titration and viable infective virus recovered from a dehydrated state and is the study I referenced casually-


    Also attached is a study from Hong Kong evaluating the transmission of SARS on fomites albeit model based. I can find other studies on transmission by fomites but it would take time that I don’t really want to devote to it. If you look at transmission routes that include dehydrated transmission it is really not an issue from a consideration of the physics. With quintillions or septillions of copies being made it is inconceivable to me that variants wouldn’t arise that bridge this transmission issue. This view is supported by the Singapore study above.


    If you look at the settling time of large droplets in still atmosphere with some forward velocity from sneezing or coughing you have a very small radius befor settling to the floor or ground or whatever of the virus laden droplet. The traditional model of transmission by large sneeze or cough droplets in no way captures the required route of transmission for a large percentage of infected persons that were in fact not in the direct path of a sneeze or cough. Once droplets are sufficiently small the liquid component evaporates at a very fast rate because the surface area is large with respect to the volume of the droplet.

    sorry spell check changes fomites to vomited
    Persistence studies are normal and important research. A number of them have been done on SARS-CoV-2, and here is a paper that summarizes many past coronavirus studies with regard to transmission and persistence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190947/
    The key thing to remember is that the Singapore study above was done in a highly controlled environment which is not the same as a surface in a home or hospital.
     

    cobright

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jan 6, 2013
    The recommendation from the WHO (directly from their website) is that healthy people should only wear a mask if caring for those who are ill with Covid 19.
    That's true. This was a policy reccomendation formed during earlier pandemic scares where the time between contracting the virus and showing symptoms was much briefer than with covid-19. They have been slowly revising their position but tend to move slowly. They currently answer the question about masks with...
    Does WHO recommend wearing medical masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
    Currently, there is not enough evidence for or against the use of masks (medical or other) in healthy individuals in the wider community. However, WHO is actively studying the rapidly evolving science on masks and continuously updates its guidance.
    These are medical people and I don’t think they fully realize yet how quickly micron sized drops evaporate and so they still think in terms of droplets on these small particulates instead of dry virus but I believe further research will show dry infective virus transport associated with very small particulates from atmospheric pollution.
    I think the main advantage the virus gains from capture in a droplet is concentration. As soon as the droplet evaporates away the viral bodies dissipate quickly and spreading the viral load of a droplet into a similar volume of open space would pose less of a risk of infection. I suspect, also that the droplet provides some protection against UV light.

    Means nothing?
    It means that for for their purpose of achieving a number of goals, only one of them being to directly reduce virus transmission rates they don't recommend universal use of masks as a public policy.

    The sweating part is another conundrum altogether, since we know a wet mask is likely an ineffective mask. Unfortunately there are no easy answers to that as we approach a summer where mask wearing will probably be expected in many places.
    I'm hoping to see more in the way of powered air circulating face masks. Not necessarily a full blown papr, but something light and comfortable and affordable to filter at the droplet level and also filter and condense exhalation.

    Have there been studies of how helpful cloth masks actually are? Yes, they can stop "large" droplets, but if the virus still gets through on "small" droplets, is it really helpful?
    Generally, virus within droplets ride them to the earth. The virus expelled as aerosol particles do not. I've linked an article published in Nature Medicine (i think) that compared the effects of face mask use on both and determined some benefit for both.

    They change recommendations regularly, and with little new information seems to be on a bureaucratic whim, or what is the flavor of the day.
    I find the CDC does good work. They make their reasoning for whatever recommendations they make available and do a good job citing that information. Their recommendations are dynamic but change that follows the availability of new information is a good thing.
     

    pahoben

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    Persistence studies are normal and important research. A number of them have been done on SARS-CoV-2, and here is a paper that summarizes many past coronavirus studies with regard to transmission and persistence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190947/
    The key thing to remember is that the Singapore study above was done in a highly controlled environment which is not the same as a surface in a home or hospital.
    I don’t think this is a critical point. The relevant parameters are temperature and humidity and these were conducted at typical values for air conditioned spaces.
     
  • pahoben

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    That's true. This was a policy reccomendation formed during earlier pandemic scares where the time between contracting the virus and showing symptoms was much briefer than with covid-19. They have been slowly revising their position but tend to move slowly. They currently answer the question about masks with...



    I think the main advantage the virus gains from capture in a droplet is concentration. As soon as the droplet evaporates away the viral bodies dissipate quickly and spreading the viral load of a droplet into a similar volume of open space would pose less of a risk of infection. I suspect, also that the droplet provides some protection against UV light.


    It means that for for their purpose of achieving a number of goals, only one of them being to directly reduce virus transmission rates they don't recommend universal use of masks as a public policy.


    I'm hoping to see more in the way of powered air circulating face masks. Not necessarily a full blown papr, but something light and comfortable and affordable to filter at the droplet level and also filter and condense exhalation.


    Generally, virus within droplets ride them to the earth. The virus expelled as aerosol particles do not. I've linked an article published in Nature Medicine (i think) that compared the effects of face mask use on both and determined some benefit for both.


    I find the CDC does good work. They make their reasoning for whatever recommendations they make available and do a good job citing that information. Their recommendations are dynamic but change that follows the availability of new information is a good thing.
    I agree that liquid immersion provides protection against UV and that was the problem with bioweapons studies that conducted UV (sunlight) sensitivity studies with viruses immersed in fluid.

    As for dispersion after evaporation I think there is evidence that fomites can provide a vehicle for atmospheric transport with sufficient viral load for infectivity. The fomites being small particles that penetrate in all cases deep into the lungs and certainly the nasal spaces. No doubt that someone in the direct path of a sneeze or a cough from an infected person is very likely to receive a large viral dose but there are far too many cases when this was clearly not the case to exclude other modes of transmission.

    I just can’t agree about the CDC. It was clear that Coronaviruses presented a material risk for what has happened with this pandemic and they still focused on other viruses that didn’t present this same risk. They then play catch up in the middle of a pandemic and their recommendations do change too frequently.
     
    Last edited:

    jiminyC_fan

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Jul 24, 2001
    Please pin your multitude of studies, I am a doctor and know that masks (depending on the mask) can have some benefit to the wearer. There are many factors which influence the effectivenes. However I wear a mask to do surgery not to protect me but to keep foreign bodies and contaminates out of surgical site. The idea that we should mandate or force someone to wear a mask is silly in my opinion. I had someone come into my office with a crocheted mask on just the other day, stylish But not effective.
    As for your thoughts on science, it is and should always be a robust debate. Not telling one side or the other to shut up and concede. Many issues which were once overwhelmingly thought to be decided science were in fact later proven to be very different. If we don’t have a questioning mind and allow ourselves to debate we are doomed to be sheep that can be fed anything in the name of science. Remember scientist are people with their own biases and agendas, not infallible.
    I would love you to have a conversation with the doctors at National Jewish Hospital. You might be a doctor but not all doctors share your opinion. I would hate for people here to take you at your word just because you are a "doctor". Other doctors do not share your cavalier approach to masks.
     

    pahoben

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Oct 27, 2013
    I would love you to have a conversation with the doctors at National Jewish Hospital. You might be a doctor but not all doctors share your opinion. I would hate for people here to take you at your word just because you are a "doctor". Other doctors do not share your cavalier approach to masks.
    I think the fundamental message of his post was that doctors do have different opinions and there is no “settled science”. He clearly intended to promote critical thought about any recommendation you receive from any doctor or scientist. Consensus medical recommendations do very clearly change from time to time and medical opinions are very often just that-opinions.

    I really doubt that anyone relies on Disboard’s posts for critical medical advice and that is his point. You should view advice you receive critically because doctors and scientists ultimately are fallible human beings just as you and I are.
     
    Last edited:

    Boardwalkbrats

    Mouseketeer
    Joined
    Nov 29, 2012
    I would love you to have a conversation with the doctors at National Jewish Hospital. You might be a doctor but not all doctors share your opinion. I would hate for people here to take you at your word just because you are a "doctor". Other doctors do not share your cavalier approach to masks.
    That is why we should be allowed to make decisions based on our own experiences and knowledge we have garnered. I don’t wish to live in a nanny state that “knows what is best for me”.
     

    ShirikiUtundu

    Cursed Idol
    Joined
    Aug 11, 2011
    There was quite a bit of discussion about that article in a previous thread: https://www.disboards.com/threads/mask-that-don’t-prevent-transmission.3802224/page-3#post-61904883
    We do know that masks are pretty effective at catching large droplets for one thing. For another thing, mask wearing is to help mitigate the potential spread of asymptomatic or presymptomatic disease, which is still very poorly understood at this point. Obviously, if you have Covid-19 and/or are coughing all over the place, you do not belong in public masked or not.
    It should be noted that this study has now been retracted.
     





    Connect

    Disney News and Updates





    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY EMAIL
    Subscribe and never miss out on Disney News, Deals and Updates.






    Top