I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre
While in jail, my understanding is that there is an increased likelihood of contracting COVID due to lack of social distancing and ability to more easily follow recommend guidelines to prevent infection.
Still seeing scarecrows?
The same argument can be made about violence. If you commit violence against another human you go to prison, but violence rates are significantly higer in prison, so are you implying we dont send them there?
Also, my topline comment is getting CRUSHED. Very surprising.
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/03/nypd-social-distancing-a...
And, you can be charged with things caused by lack of sleep--reckless driving, for instance.
However, there is a difference between fining someone for lack of compliance and jailing someone for lack of compliance. Jailing someone in the middle of a pandemic is stupid.
Homemade masks (as opposed to N95) and handkerchiefs are only marginally effective against reducing transmission. Having a strong immune system is a scientifically proven way to reduce your health risk significantly.
What is silly is all the people who are content to do the absolute bare minimum, easiest possible thing to attempt to protect people's health: merely putting a piece of cloth on their face; while at the same time neglecting to put in the work to improve their overall health, and thus their risk to others of spreading the virus.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/
https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
> Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
> We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
> Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf
> The purpose of a facemask, when worn by a patient suspected or confirmed with an illness such as influenza or tuberculosis, is to reduce the amount of large infectious particles released as the patient talks, sneezes, or coughs; this limits their concentration in the room air and reduces the infection risk to others who are present.
> However, facemasks by design do not seal tightly to the wearer’s face. Therefore, they allow unfiltered air to easily flow around the sides of the facemask into the breathing zone and respiratory tract of the wearer. In addition, the materials used for facemasks are not regulated for their ability to filter particles and are known to vary greatly between models. This makes it possible for small particles to pass through or around the facemask and be inhaled by the wearer. This is why they are not considered respiratory protection— facemasks do NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller particles, including those emitted into the room air by a patient who is exhaling or coughing, or generated during certain medical procedures.
Also eyes are an entry point too:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1....
> Conclusions: Together, these results indicate that ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, and could therefore serve as a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus. This highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease.
EDIT: Why is everyone downvoting me? I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure."
It's the first half that I would take issue with, and I don't see anything you quoted as convincingly supporting it.
Garden variety masks are not suitable for healthcare professionals; that's why N95 masks are reserved for them. But the ordinary masks are vital to reduce the odds of transmission where the proportions of infected to not-infected are inverted.
It's fundamentally different whether you have one (potentially) infected person surrounded by non-infected people, or one (presumably) non-infected person surrounded by infected people. The latter needs an N95 and maybe more, and the former needs anything as long as it deflects exhalations a little.
> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
The later study also states non-N95 masks allow 97%. So basically useless.
In simple hand-waving terms the mask diffuses the wearer's exhalation reducing the velocity of the air stream and its contained particles, thereby reducing the distance the particles can travel and increasing the odds that the particles drop out of the airstream and onto a surface before they encounter another person.
The diffusive effects of masks does not provide a 100% barrier but given that Covid-19 appears to be predominantly transmitted via airborne particles rather than surface contact, mask wearing can still have a large impact on transmission without being directly protective of the wearer.
> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
And the later study states non-N95 masks allow 97%.
It is unclear if the historical studies involved social distancing or close proximity (critical to current understanding of Covid-19 mask efficacy) and it is concerning that the paper reports "most studies were underpowered because of sample size and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group."
More importantly, Covid-19 appears to have different transmission characteristics than other influenza style viruses, making literature reviews such as the one you cite less predictive of Covid-19 behaviors than would often have been the case with other viruses.
The paper is interesting but it's definitely not supported by their data to say the paper shows masks worn by infected individuals are ineffective at reducing the spread of Covid-19 in a social distance context.
[edit: updated with additional detail from the cited paper]
The government should buy ads showing the efficacy of face masks and use the ad council to pretty it up.
If you have politically connected individuals flouting the rules, people will salami tactics their way to not wearing the masks.
*edit: thanks for the word correction suggestion.
Except that the primary benefit of masks wrt covid is to significantly reduce the likelihood of the wearer to spread covid (by reducing how much spit escapes ones mouth). So the decision to wear/not wear is not directly about the decider's risk, it's about societal risk.
The last study you quote says "this highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease.". Another is a meta-study of very few low quality studies. The osha guidelines are essentially just explaining that respirators are important in some settings, which nobody serious doubts. Another just determines that respirators are more effective than cloth masks. Doh.
Just quoting a bunch of half related studies doesn't make a fact.
> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.
I cited multiple studies. No idea where your "bunch of half related studies" is coming from. Your comment comes off as condescending.
[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768532