Hacker News Reader

> It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).

I agree with this. 100% mandatory outside of your home would mean I would have to wear a mask while running, which seems unnecessary when I see a grand total of 1 or 2 people on my entire run (and cross the street to keep plenty of distances between us).

This is one danger of applying a solution for 100% of everyone, everywhere without taking into account any nuances.

That said, mandating masks indoors + outdoors when you can't maintain 6 feet of distance seems like a no brainer. Perhaps in higher density areas it could be worth requiring them 100% of the time, even outdoors, but I'd like to see the data first.

One of the problems with "masks should be required" is that it lacks nuance. Around where I live--exurbs of a major NE US city--they're required and pretty much universally used in stores as far as I can see. However, outside, it's very mixed and personally it seems pretty reasonable. But I'm sure to some people it seems as if people aren't being reasonable.

Certainly I'm not wearing by myself in the woods. But perhaps that's seen poor practice by some. No idea what things look like in the city. Perhaps I'd find it uncomfortable.

Most of the mask orders I've seen take that into account though, requiring masks indoors and in outdoor spaces where social distancing is not possible or enforced.

It is. Although some people seem to feel strongly that's not enough.

The lack of nuance is a feature and not a bug. It takes the decision out of the individual's hands since people can have any number of reasons ranging from valid to incomprehensible for why their specific activity doesn't require a mask. We have already tried leaving it up to individuals for the last 4+ months and that clearly hasn't worked. The choices going forward appear to either be to put stronger precautions in place until there is a vaccine or continue to let tens or hundreds of thousands of more people die unnecessarily so we can be slightly more comfortable while outside our homes.

Well, where I live which is about as blue as it gets in the US, people are being good at wearing masks inside based on what I've seen--essentially universal. And they may have masks for walking around in close contact outside but they're not required or generally worn when people are, for example, sitting down and eating outside or walking separated by some distance.

My understanding is that is pretty much the situation even for places where that are relatively enforcing masking in the US.

Strongly agree.

Public health policy and individualised medicine are, or at least can be, vastly different things.

If you tell everyone they must wear a mast at all times, some people still will not.

If you tell everyone a more complex set of rules than masks at all times when out of your usual place of residence then people will fabricate all types of fictions that exempt themselves from the rues.

I generally agree, and I personally don't wear a mask outside when I walk in my neighborhood for this exact reason (very low density, plenty of space).

With that said, it appears that if there is any gray area in the rules then the general population is almost sure to abuse them. In this case, I think it's better to err on the side of caution and make it 100% mandatory so there is absolutely no gray area.

I mentioned this in another comment already, but this is what’s being done in New Mexico.

The mask order was extended to, basically, “wear a mask if you’re outside your house”. This includes exercising outside. Personally, I find that part a bit excessive; however, my understanding is that it’s meant to counter exactly what you pointed out: as long as there are any exceptions, some people will reason their way out of compliance. A 100% mandate is just easier and simpler to follow.

I now wear a mask when walking in my neighborhood after I noticed other people wearing masks too. Chalk it up to peer pressure I guess, but to me it’s a very small price to pay if it helps enforce mask-wearing in other contexts.

Outside in low density areas appears to be fairly safe, but it's a behavioral problem, and if masks are mandated and normalized, this thing'll be over in a jiffy and we can meet down at the pub for a pint.

R0 is an ensemble average, not a useful metric for any given person. It's likely that transmission is wildly variable, and that superspreading events are major contributors to transmission. Basically, households slowly pass the disease between each other, and occasionally one person manages to get a shitload of people outside their household sick. Masks appear to be extremely effective at stopping the superspreading events, which has a huge effect on R0.

At this point, I don't care about the effectiveness. It is a sign of respect for those of us who have lost family and friends as a result of this global pandemic with what will amount to millions dead over the next 1-2 years. It is a very visible sign that shows that you care about yourself and the people around you.

I'm very, very pro-mask; I'm optimistic that getting people to wear them could drop R0 << 1 and bring an end to this. That said, it seems unethical to me to mandate (read: enforce with fine/imprisonment) it for the purpose of ... what sounds like virtue signaling?

The scales fall from tetrometal's eyes .... yes, a huge amount of the discussion around masks is pure virtue signalling.

That's why there's this huge focus on masks stopping the spread by pre-symptomatic people, which is a highly dubious and never-before tried idea, for which basically no reliable evidence exists (masks pre-COVID being intended to stop you getting sick, not other people), and which is an absolutely pure form of virtue signalling. It's literally a highly visible sign that someone is suffering discomfort for someone else's health, except, that only works if you believe it's actually true.

Look at the Nordics. In Sweden there's no mask requirement because the epidemic is disappearing. In Norway they pointed out that given the tiny number of infected people, even if you assume masks work perfectly, 200,000 people would need to wear a mask constantly to stop one new infection. And this is a virus with an IFR of about 0.1% so you end up needing millions of people to wear masks constantly to stop just a single death, almost certainly of a person very close to the end of their life anyway.

The numbers just don't work, at all, once the epidemic has faded away. And as Sweden and other places shows it can fade away without any mask requirements.

Masks are less important, if people socially distance and practice good hygiene.

If you don't give the virus a chance to spread, it cannot spread.

The problem is that in the US and elsewhere, people cannot seem to follow the social distancing and hygiene, so you need to find a way to physically distance people with masks and other protections.

To say that masks do not work, is untrue. There is a reason why doctors and others wear masks in their own professions.

By the way, when you say it is disappearing, that doesn't mean let the guard down. Look at what is happening in Vietnam. 100 days clean and they let their guard down and look at what is happening now.

Sweden has far and away the highest death rate of the Nordics, over 11 times that of Norway. I really don't think the data supports your point. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Norway indeed basically hasn't had COVID. Perhaps they will when they have fully finished releasing their lockdown, or perhaps COVID is more like seasonal flu, which does hit some countries and not others for unexplained reasons every year.

However, the point stands. Sweden has not had particularly bad outcomes, being as it is in the middle of the pack, and with most deaths being in care homes where Sweden has many other severe problems, e.g. many staff who can't speak Swedish. In fact in one care home they ended up in a spot where none of the staff spoke Swedish causing problems for a resident who couldn't communicate with them to get food! So given Sweden's dependency on immigrant labour for care homes it's maybe not a surprise they've had problems protecting those homes. For the general population however, COVID has not been a problem.

I don't even bother getting into death rate discussions any more because it is pointless.

You read the Survivors Groups on FB [0] and the real problem people aren't understanding is that this isn't quick death we need to worry about, it is the long term health effects that will lead to a lifetime of medical issues.

[0] https://www.facebook.com/groups/COVID19survivorcorps/

That is magical thinking. SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic in the worldwide human population. Wearing masks in public for a few months won't change that reality.

Wouldn't have to mandate it, if people would just do it...

Better idea, use positive reinforcement. Walmart, et al raise prices 15%. Mask wearers get 15% off. Everyone else pays full-price.

Sorry, illegal due to the ADA since some people can't wear masks.

False. If a store makes accomodations, then you cannot use the ADA defense. Currently >95% of stores (maybe higher) have curbside pickup, so this excuse is dead in the water.

Like who?

They have to mandate N95 masks indoors if it is indeed aerosol-based superspreader events.

Yeah, well I don't actually care about theater versus what's effective.

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as theater. This isn't a play or performance, it is a global pandemic and people, including myself, are losing loved ones.

You wrote "I don't care about the effectiveness." So, yes, it's theater if you want to require things that don't actually do any good.

It does do good. I said that I don't care about the effectiveness. That doesn't mean it isn't effective. Nor does it mean that you shouldn't wear one.

> It sounds reasonable in closed spaces (like in the examples you gave). But I'm reluctant to wear a mask outside in low-density area (I would if there were strong evidence it made any difference).

It gets weird because there are many non-closed spaces which are very crowded. Imagine a concert, or the boardwalk.

why are you reluctant?